'Net Neutrality. (PBS tonight)

[JackDog]

I thought that the whole Net Neutrality debate was over, but I've been seeing TV commercials attacking it lately. The commerical is paid for by a coalition of cable companies, and it says that Net Neutrality is some kind of myth made up by Silicon Valley-types to make money. Obvious lies, but since it's on the teevee, people are gonna believe it. Luckily, Bill Moyers and PBS have produced a program on Net Neutrality, and it airs tonight. Here are the highlights from an e-mail I received:

Tune in to PBS tonight to see the SavetheInternet.com Coalition featured in "The Net at Risk," a documentary produced by award-winning journalist Bill Moyers.


Then join other SavetheInternet.com members in an online Web discussion at PBS.org.


Bill Moyers' show airs at 9 p.m. in most cities (check local listings). Immediately following the East Coast broadcast, PBS.org will host a live Internet debate between Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott and phone industry flack Mike McCurry.


You can be a part of this online debate. Here's how to join in:


When: Oct. 18, 10:30 pm Eastern / 7:30 pm Pacific
Where: http://www.pbs.org/moyers


You'll be asked to log in to participate in the online discussion. With your help, we hope to light up the PBS Web site with our campaign to save Net Neutrality.

[JackDog]

If you want to watch this program, be sure to check your local listings. I just did, and it's on at 8:30 where I live...not 9:00.

[RareBear]

Thanks for the heads up. While I'm a left-leaner on most everything else, I tend to think net neutrality is not a good thing. The internet is stagnant in large part because there is no value stucture. When there is no value structure where people can substantiate market potentials for new media art services, it is very difficult to succeed in doing anything new, novel and worthwhile. The choice is only this: have government impose controls to keep the current internet model preserved or let business competition drive the future. That's all it comes down to and I woruld rather risk for the stimuli of progress than ensure the current lack thereof. End o' story.

[Ari]

I disagree that the Net is stagnant, a number of new things have popped up in recent years*, a good majority are not created by the people that own the backbone networks. It would seem that allowing them to control data rates would stifle any new startup companies that don't pay their 'protection' money to the backbone owners.

unless I'm misunderstanding your use of stagnant.

*P2P sharing, music downloading stores, movie downloading stores, blogging, image sharing, video sharing, voip, etc.

[beyelzu]

it is going to be on ten tonight and i appreciate the heads up.

[RareBear]

Originally Posted by Ari

I disagree that the Net is stagnant, a number of new things have popped up in recent years*, a good majority are not created by the people that own the backbone networks. It would seem that allowing them to control data rates would stifle any new startup companies that don't pay their 'protection' money to the backbone owners.

unless I'm misunderstanding your use of stagnant.

*P2P sharing, music downloading stores, movie downloading stores, blogging, image sharing, video sharing, voip, etc.

Fundamentally my assertion relates to the "model" of the internet world as it is now. For all we know there may be thunderously valuable modalities, products and services that can realy deliver on the promises of the information age out there in innovators' minds but there is basically no "value structure" of any kind for "non-advertizing-based" new ventures to formulate buuisness plan approaches upon. A shakeup of the net of any kind that involves money and competition will begin to establish niche value points that innovators can use. More and more internet users will embrace innovation--even if it costs--because the computer and internet revolution has proven that people want faster, more-powerful technologies to maintain their own modernity and competitiveness and are willing to adjust to the costs of achieving that. They buy computers and software and spend for ISP's, why wouldn't they be willing to pony up for perceived or delivered new value in the net experience? The funds reaped will fuel more innovation and enable more daring new media ventures that break the mold of what we already know. The worst thing to do is develop a bleeding heart attitude that deems everyone entitled to the same thing and then passing laws to ensure that. That would be a profoundly stifling mistake.


I'm taping Bill Moyers thing on PBS while watching the Mets vs Cards in game 6 and will watch the show later to see if it provides and better light.

[Ari]

Rare: You should watch it.

I found it interesting, and came away with an increased hate for the greedy big business telecom companies, who seem to want to line their pockets anyway possible.

Slightly off topic I'm amazed capitalists don't speak out more against these companies. it would seem to me running to congress to try and take out their competition is about the same as IDists running to the courts to get their views in science classes.

[Plant Woman]

Excellent program.

Now where is the fiber optics, I've been promised?

[cappuccino]

I watched the program too, I liked it, I was pleased by the balanced reporting and they covered the major issues I was aware of, including the companies' failure to provide the services they had promised and now they're demanding that we pay after they took our 250 billion dollars in tax-writeoffs and reneged on their promises? I don't think so.

Rarebear, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. Basically when we say internet in this discussion context, we actually are talking about the infrastructure...not the content. The infrastructure should be neutral with respect to the content traveling through it. So if the telecommunication companies get their way and build toll infrastructure and glibly try to pull the wool over the public's eyes by claiming they're making the network "intelligent" by providing fast and slow lanes for different types of data. What a good idea at first appearance till you look closely at what they're really doing. What they didn't mention is that they'd be able to exercise control over content and muscle competition out of the fray by having sole control over the pipelines and forcing data providers and people to pay double exorbitant fees, first to connect to the internet *and* to push data through the network.

Personally, I think the internet infrastructure should be taken out of the companies' control and made a municipal utility service, like water, electricity, and such.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

Originally Posted by RareBear

Thanks for the heads up. While I'm a left-leaner on most everything else, I tend to think net neutrality is not a good thing. The internet is stagnant in large part because there is no value stucture. When there is no value structure where people can substantiate market potentials for new media art services, it is very difficult to succeed in doing anything new, novel and worthwhile. The choice is only this: have government impose controls to keep the current internet model preserved or let business competition drive the future. That's all it comes down to and I woruld rather risk for the stimuli of progress than ensure the current lack thereof. End o' story.

yikes...there is something about this that gives me the willies.


michael

[Ari]

Originally Posted by cappuccino

I watched the program too, I liked it, I was pleased by the balanced reporting and they covered the major issues I was aware of, including the companies' failure to provide the services they had promised and now they're demanding that we pay after they took our 250 billion dollars in tax-writeoffs and reneged on their promises? I don't think so.

Exactly. They basically want us to pay for their failure and expect us to swallow their promise that "this time" they will use the money to upgrade the network. Then they have the audacity to sue towns trying to follow through on the promise by claiming they have unfair tax advantages.


Made right I think a smart network would be quite useful. If the network gets congested I wouldn't mind my 56k connection sent to the slow lane, because no matter how fast I zip across the network, my connection bottlenecks what I can get. But it would need to be designed in such a way that companies couldn't take advantage of it.

[JackDog]

As I expected, it was an excellent program and I learned a few things. First of all, yesterday I was under the impression that it was "internet neutrality" for some reason. It's network neutrality. But the thing that I got most excited about was what LaFayette, Louisaina did to bring a fiber-optic connection to every home in town. The phone and cable companies have gotten comfortable and greedy with their little duopoly, and it's nice to finally see someone fighting back. I loved one of the quotes that they got from someone from LaFayette when talking about trusting the phone and cable companies to fulfill their promises, "You don't put that kind of trust in somebody if you don't have to, and we don't have to."

[viscousmemories]

I had a thread on 'net neutrality before, in case anyone's interested. I bumped it yesterday to call attention to it, but I should've just linked to it. Anyway I missed the show, but I'm going to check for a re-run and DVR it.

Speaking of community-based solutions, the Michigan county I grew up in is looking to provide free or "lower-cost" wireless broadband to everyone in the county by the end of 2007. You can read more about this initiative here.

[RareBear]

Originally Posted by cappuccino

I watched the program too, I liked it, I was pleased by the balanced reporting and they covered the major issues I was aware of, including the companies' failure to provide the services they had promised and now they're demanding that we pay after they took our 250 billion dollars in tax-writeoffs and reneged on their promises? I don't think so.

Rarebear, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. Basically when we say internet in this discussion context, we actually are talking about the infrastructure...not the content. The infrastructure should be neutral with respect to the content traveling through it. So if the telecommunication companies get their way and build toll infrastructure and glibly try to pull the wool over the public's eyes by claiming they're making the network "intelligent" by providing fast and slow lanes for different types of data. What a good idea at first appearance till you look closely at what they're really doing. What they didn't mention is that they'd be able to exercise control over content and muscle competition out of the fray by having sole control over the pipelines and forcing data providers and people to pay double exorbitant fees, first to connect to the internet *and* to push data through the network.

Personally, I think the internet infrastructure should be taken out of the companies' control and made a municipal utility service, like water, electricity, and such.

I've only made it through half of the moyers special and will be studying the rest later. Suffice it to say that the i8ssues are deep and muti-faceted and oversimplifications are being used by both sides in the argument to paint self-serving pictures.

I had to stop because I have to go out but there is one point I'd like to comment on from what I did see so far: First amendment types are concerned that freedom of speech would be under attack by a non-neutral net, figuring that the internet provides a channel for bloggers to reach a mass audience et al. The trouble is that the internet is not a broadcast medium--it is basically a public filinging cabinet where only people who are looking for certain types of files will ever see what you have stored there. There is no "speech" in the sense of speech that we have tradtionally thought--there is only the filing of an expression and a search engine that helps interested parties find such a thing. That demands a change in the argument about free speech--even if it is a tiny change, it must be understood accurately and fully.

Certainly there should be laws to prevent biased cencorship of content but should there be a law saying that company "A" can't build a super-dynamo of two-way socio-political discourse worth more than the ability to merely post a blog, charge more for that and agressively go after what ever speed and delivery capacity to distinguish itself from the other less-sophisticated stuff residing on the net? What if you got really sick of the "public filing cabinet" system in which all of your most passionate interests were forced by law to remain camouflaged and pipe-constricted and were willing to pay more to achieve some break away capacity, should you be forced to weep over those whose services might now become somehow secondary to yours?

I look at it this way: would you want the government to say that you can't own a pentium computer because everyone in your county owns an I-386? It's a good thing to be able to buy a faster computer. It lets you move up and join a new club or start one in which other people strive for something better. That's how we got to where we are. It's not a good thing to take away the incentive machine.

I still have more to watch and am wary of dishonesty in the business world. It pays to have a government that ensures accountability to law but not a government that can be bought. Later.

A government rule to not allow a compnay to go great guns toward its ideal will fundamentally ensure that the internet as a whole--especially in America which is floating on ancient infrastructure whereas the world has the ability to start at the head of the class--will stagnate.

[Ari]

Rare: The pentium analogy is commented on in one of the final interviews. No one is stopping companies from charging for faster connections, we see that today with cable often costing more than 56k. What the tier system would do is charge companies for unrestricted access to current high speed connections (as far as I can tell we aren't talking about charging for new high speed fiber but about putting more charges on the current network, with promises that extra money will go to the fiber network (promises that have already been broken once)).

I found the electricity analogy to be quite good.

[RareBear]

Originally Posted by Ari

Rare: The pentium analogy is commented on in one of the final interviews. No one is stopping companies from charging for faster connections, we see that today with cable often costing more than 56k. What the tier system would do is charge companies for unrestricted access to current high speed connections (as far as I can tell we aren't talking about charging for new high speed fiber but about putting more charges on the current network, with promises that extra money will go to the fiber network (promises that have already been broken once)).

I found the electricity analogy to be quite good.

Good points. One thing's for sure, this is not as simple as many make it out to be. I look forward to studying the rest of the broadcast (tonight after the NY Mets win the NL flag, I hope, I hope, I hope..) And remain an open-minded liberal dem.