Net Neutrality Vote

2»

Comments

  • eansdadeansdad Member Posts: 775 ■■■■□□□□□□
    Although I don't like it I don't see a problem with companies charging other companies for specific bandwidth. If Netflicks chews up a lot of bandwidth then they should be charged for it BUT charge each company fairly and use those profits for upgrading lines to increase bandwidth. My problem sets with companies like Comcast throttling back my connection on legitimate torrent downloads and gaming. I also don't want to see the government taking measures to protect me from something I don't see as a threat. In no way will that UK plan work since a simple proxy server in another country can get around it.

    Basically as long as things are fair things should be fine but if one side or the other decides to go off on a tear then we are all in trouble.
  • RobertKaucherRobertKaucher A cornfield in OhioMember Posts: 4,299 ■■■■■■■■■■
    eansdad wrote: »
    Although I don't like it I don't see a problem with companies charging other companies for specific bandwidth. If Netflicks chews up a lot of bandwidth then they should be charged for it BUT charge each company fairly and use those profits for upgrading lines to increase bandwidth. My problem sets with companies like Comcast throttling back my connection on legitimate torrent downloads and gaming. I also don't want to see the government taking measures to protect me from something I don't see as a threat. In no way will that UK plan work since a simple proxy server in another country can get around it.

    Basically as long as things are fair things should be fine but if one side or the other decides to go off on a tear then we are all in trouble.

    It is the ISPs' customers who are using the bandwidth NOT NetFlix. NetFlix exists because there is demand from the customers of the ISPs. How can one private company charge another private company for the right to do business?

    This is why I believe the Internet is like a Public Good. It is just like a light house. Imagine it is 1776 and some private citizen has created a light house. He goes down to the ship yard and announces to all the captains that they now need to pay him X dollars because he runs the light house and they all gain from the light house being there. Of course they look at him and say "Psha, whatever, dude. I didn't agree to that."

    So how does he inforce it? He cannot. What does he say. "Well next time you come into port make sure you close your eyes so you don't see my light house." This is exactly why the government has always been responsible for setting up lighthouses. What should TWC say to NetFlix? You can't come accross my network? If the service is popular enough their user base migth rebel. But if we do allow this it will debilitate inovation because new protcols and ideas will not even be able to catch on. "I have this great new service but I can't afford to pay the TWC fee. I can only afford to pay Comcast to allow my packets."

    I'm not saying the US Government should fully run the US portion of the Internet - but I do think that the current system we have in place is sub-optimal and that we need to get some very smart people together to solve the problems we have. These things just aren't as simple as some folks here seem to want to believe they are.

    This idea of "Just let the market settle it" is not going to work. This is too important of a question to allow it to evolve naturally because it is not natural. We have too many large companies with tons of money who will drive it into a way to get the biggest chunk of change out of it that they can. "We the people" need to ensure this is resolved in a way that inovation and free exchange of information are all protected to the extreme.
  • powerfoolpowerfool Senior Member Member Posts: 1,649 ■■■■■■■■□□
    I am going to make my first statement very clear: I am absolutely opposed to Net Neutrality legislation.

    The fact of the matter is, the Internet has existed and thrived without this legislation. While I would be peeved if my ISP tinkered with a service that I use, that is something for me to take up with my ISP, either personally or via civil action. I have a naked DSL and use some VoIP and use Netflix, HuluPlus, and Amazon on Demand for everything that I cannot get with rabbit ears (all competing with my ISP). It works great, and it isn't even new cable or FiOS/UVerse. I have Comcast available in my area and I refuse to use them because their customer service (what little I have had to deal with) is horrible. I will not pay for their service, and I will not use it if it is deeply discounted.

    To those that have naively said that what others have said are "lies". That is an immature statement, bottom line. For anyone to state with certainty the affects of legislation beyond what is directly spelled out is naive. For anyone to say that legislation will actually do what is says is also naive. What legislation has been successful at doing what it says? Please name one. Laws limiting the sale of Sudafed OTC to impact meth production... fail. No Child Left Behind improving education.... fail. Medicare Part.. er, Medicare.... fail. "Obamacare" lowering the cost of healthcare and letting people keep their insurance.... fail, and portions have only been in affect for a few months. To honestly feel that more rules and regulation are going to improve a situation... I would hate to live in a world where I felt that way.

    Vint Cert, considered the Father of the Internet (contractor for DoD ARPA project, engineer at MCI, founder of ICANN, and former VP of Google) has come out against Net Neutrality.

    Do I like the idea that my bandwidth should be treated equally? Sure do. Do I think legislation will do anything to safeguard that? Heck no. Do I believe in the principal that something should be done about it outside of the free market? Absolutely not. Believe it or not, ISPs like Comcast will actually open the door for new ISPs because customers will get peeved off. The issue here is that governments actually create monopolies in utilities by creating an arduous and expensive land access situation. If they opened up utility land access, it would be easier to enter these markets. Wireless services are already going to do this. Further, large organization like Google have already gotten around this problem by co-locating with various carriers, and other solutions include buying addition pipe from other carriers not just for performance (which does indeed make a difference w/o tampering with traffic), but for DR/BC purposes. Any large Internet based company would do this as a vital part of doing business. As an example, Netflix would be stupid to not get independent links to various carriers, including Comcast; it only makes sense.

    Here is what makes absolute sense.... companies that are being strong armed by carriers need to not back down. Comcast has done this not only with Internet access, but also with television service. So, to say that "Fox" is opposed to Net Neutrality because it is "in bed" with Comcast is ridiculous... because Comcast pulled this garbage with them in several markets for TV service. They should have refused to pay more money to Comcast. Guess what would have happened? Customers would have been outraged and they would have stood up to Comcast or went a different route... and Comcast would have been without any funds from Fox. And to be clear, they were blocking access to local affiliates... meaning the signal is free over the air, anyhow. Why does Comcast require money for something they can get access to for free and provide to their customers creating extra value? Seems like a dumb business model that would go away if people stood up for themselves.

    Now, let me get down from this soap box before I have a heart attack... I hate talking about politics with people on the web... Good day.
    AZ-204 [ ] AZ-400 [X] AZ-500
    2020 Goals: Azure Developer Associate, Azure DevOps Expert, Azure Security Associate
  • powerfoolpowerfool Senior Member Member Posts: 1,649 ■■■■■■■■□□
    This idea of "Just let the market settle it" is not going to work.

    Uh, it has the entire existence of the Internet... No system is perfect, but free markets work over time... regulation isn't going to make problems go away, it never has.
    AZ-204 [ ] AZ-400 [X] AZ-500
    2020 Goals: Azure Developer Associate, Azure DevOps Expert, Azure Security Associate
  • Excellent1Excellent1 Member Posts: 461 ■■■■■■□□□□
    It is the ISPs' customers who are using the bandwidth NOT NetFlix. NetFlix exists because there is demand from the customers of the ISPs. How can one private company charge another private company for the right to do business?

    This is why I believe the Internet is like a Public Good. It is just like a light house. Imagine it is 1776 and some private citizen has created a light house. He goes down to the ship yard and announces to all the captains that they now need to pay him X dollars because he runs the light house and they all gain from the light house being there. Of course they look at him and say "Psha, whatever, dude. I didn't agree to that."

    So how does he inforce it? He cannot. What does he say. "Well next time you come into port make sure you close your eyes so you don't see my light house." This is exactly why the government has always been responsible for setting up lighthouses. What should TWC say to NetFlix? You can't come accross my network? If the service is popular enough their user base migth rebel. But if we do allow this it will debilitate inovation because new protcols and ideas will not even be able to catch on. "I have this great new service but I can't afford to pay the TWC fee. I can only afford to pay Comcast to allow my packets."

    I'm not saying the US Government should fully run the US portion of the Internet - but I do think that the current system we have in place is sub-optimal and that we need to get some very smart people together to solve the problems we have. These things just aren't as simple as some folks here seem to want to believe they are.

    This idea of "Just let the market settle it" is not going to work. This is too important of a question to allow it to evolve naturally because it is not natural. We have too many large companies with tons of money who will drive it into a way to get the biggest chunk of change out of it that they can. "We the people" need to ensure this is resolved in a way that inovation and free exchange of information are all protected to the extreme.

    You have made several valid points, most of which I completely agree with. However, like many, I am not optimistic about what the government will do once they start regulating the internet. Government intervention is often like a cancer: once it settles in, it begins to metastasize. What starts out as a noble and laudable intent ends in power being misused for the very reasons you're concerned about above.

    You are certainly correct in the overly simplistic view that many take on this issue and many others. I see even on this board the partisan posturing, the "republicans are evil and just for the rich people" and the "democrats want the government to control your whole life" stereotyping. The truth, of course, is that there are good, principled men and women from BOTH sides of the aisle (and every other political ideology, for that matter). However, there is corruption rampant in our system on BOTH sides of the aisle.

    You mention the money that the big corporations will pour into exploiting an uregulated internet, and you are correct to mention this. However, it would be disingenuous at best not to mention that those same evil corporations also pour that money in to the government that you seem willing to trust as a regulatory body. The truth that we all know is that our political system is for sale, it's corrupt, it's broken, and it's not one side or the other, it's both. That being the case, the less power we give our government over any facet of our lives, the better.

    Perhaps government regulation will work out well in this case. It's succeeded before, and it will again. However, I certainly understand those with grave concerns about going this route. I also think that perhaps free market capitalism can work in this case. If you compare the track record of free market capitalism versus government intervention for righting wrongs and protecting the consumer, I think you might be surprised at the outcome.

    In any case, as I said, I agree with most of your points. Time will tell how it will work out.
  • SteveLordSteveLord Member Posts: 1,717
    mrgreggie wrote: »
    Just want to point out that torrent traffic doesn't necessarily mean movies and music. Not that you implied this at all, but torrent traffic these days seems to have that connotation. As an example, I downloaded CentOS a few days back, and seeded for a long while after the download was complete. It's hard to fairly prioritize consumer bandwidth, with the exception of VoIP.

    Riiiiiight. To somehow compare the amount of legitimate torrent users versus illegitimate users is pointless. We all know what the overwhelming majority of torrent users download and it isn't CentOS or the latest World of Warcraft patch.
    WGU B.S.IT - 9/1/2015 >>> ???
  • apena7apena7 Member Posts: 351
    powerfool wrote: »
    Now, let me get down from this soap box before I have a heart attack... I hate talking about politics with people on the web... Good day.

    I know what you mean. Talking about politics is just about as productive as discussing the Mac Vs. PC debate.
    Usus magister est optimus
  • RobertKaucherRobertKaucher A cornfield in OhioMember Posts: 4,299 ■■■■■■■■■■
    powerfool wrote: »
    Uh, it has the entire existence of the Internet... No system is perfect, but free markets work over time... regulation isn't going to make problems go away, it never has.

    This is not 1998 any more and the Internet is not principally in the hands of the same people it was back then. On top of that it has become, and is becoming even more so, integrated into the fabric of our lives - far more than it was back then. Perhaps it is the best thing to do, but we have to come to that conclusion through dialog and debate. We should not just throw up our hands and say it is the best thing we have done so far, so let's just keep going, when clearly the playing field is changing drastically and very fast.

    I am not in favor of a Government controlled Internet - but I am certainly not in favor of a situation where the ISPs (most of which have near monopolies in many areas) can do whatever they want. And 90% of the user base will not give a crap so long as they can play FarmVille.

    If there is no watch dog, then who will protect the things we love about the original Internet? We have seen through history that corporations and individuals will do whatever they can to make a buck or consolidate power. The rise of China in the next 1/2 of this century is going to change things in ways we cannot imagine right now.

    All I know is that we are at a cross road in History. It's one we might take very slowly, or we might rush through it - but we must take it deliberately because the fututre of our global civilization will be forever changed by how we, the US as a nation, and the world decide to treat this Internet thing. And I believe inaction is as poor of a choice as over-regulation.
  • RobertKaucherRobertKaucher A cornfield in OhioMember Posts: 4,299 ■■■■■■■■■■
    Excellent1 wrote: »
    You have made several valid points, most of which I completely agree with. However, like many, I am not optimistic about what the government will do once they start regulating the internet. Government intervention is often like a cancer: once it settles in, it begins to metastasize. What starts out as a noble and laudable intent ends in power being misused for the very reasons you're concerned about above.

    You are certainly correct in the overly simplistic view that many take on this issue and many others. I see even on this board the partisan posturing, the "republicans are evil and just for the rich people" and the "democrats want the government to control your whole life" stereotyping. The truth, of course, is that there are good, principled men and women from BOTH sides of the aisle (and every other political ideology, for that matter). However, there is corruption rampant in our system on BOTH sides of the aisle.

    You mention the money that the big corporations will pour into exploiting an uregulated internet, and you are correct to mention this. However, it would be disingenuous at best not to mention that those same evil corporations also pour that money in to the government that you seem willing to trust as a regulatory body. The truth that we all know is that our political system is for sale, it's corrupt, it's broken, and it's not one side or the other, it's both. That being the case, the less power we give our government over any facet of our lives, the better.

    Perhaps government regulation will work out well in this case. It's succeeded before, and it will again. However, I certainly understand those with grave concerns about going this route. I also think that perhaps free market capitalism can work in this case. If you compare the track record of free market capitalism versus government intervention for righting wrongs and protecting the consumer, I think you might be surprised at the outcome.

    In any case, as I said, I agree with most of your points. Time will tell how it will work out.

    I do not want them to regulate it. I want them the hell out of it. I think the issue we have is that at no other point in human history have we had something like the Internet and we have no model for how to make it work. In my ideal world there would be a group dedicated to ensuring that traffic on the Internet was not being improperly restricted. There would be another group for funding the maintenance and upgrade of the core of the Internet and the ISPs would be in charge of getting us all connected to the core. I don't know, that's just a pipe dream. I'm not smart enough to know the answers, but I know we have to discuss the questions.

    Unless the FCC is going to come out and say, "We are going to regulate the Internet by saying ISPs may not mess with the Internet in ways that inhibit growth and inovation and may not practice censorship and we Promise we will not practice censorship either," I don't want them regulating it at all (at least no more than they did before).
  • powerfoolpowerfool Senior Member Member Posts: 1,649 ■■■■■■■■□□
    If there is no watch dog, then who will protect the things we love about the original Internet? We have seen through history that corporations and individuals will do whatever they can to make a buck or consolidate power. The rise of China in the next 1/2 of this century is going to change things in ways we cannot imagine right now.

    Who will watch the watcher? There is no need to protect the "original Internet"... it is gone, things change. Gosh, I wish we could have protected the horse and buggy better...

    You talk about consolidating power, but the government has the greatest concentration of power... and giving them more will give more leverage to corporation that try and get peddled influence.

    Think about it.... Wal-Mart is in favor of increases to the minimum wage. Why? They lose money if they are forced to pay more than the current wages, right? Nope. They can deal with that impact, but their competitors cannot. Government involvement is the end for smaller competitors. It always is.
    AZ-204 [ ] AZ-400 [X] AZ-500
    2020 Goals: Azure Developer Associate, Azure DevOps Expert, Azure Security Associate
  • eMeSeMeS Member Posts: 1,875
    This is why I believe the Internet is like a Public Good.

    Agree completely. The Internet is a public good, and people almost always don't want to pay for public goods.

    MS
  • erpadminerpadmin Member Posts: 4,165
    Excellent1 wrote: »
    You are certainly correct in the overly simplistic view that many take on this issue and many others. I see even on this board the partisan posturing, the "republicans are evil and just for the rich people" and the "democrats want the government to control your whole life" stereotyping. The truth, of course, is that there are good, principled men and women from BOTH sides of the aisle (and every other political ideology, for that matter). However, there is corruption rampant in our system on BOTH sides of the aisle.


    Chris Rock said it best: You CAN'T be just one thing...be it conservative or liberal. Politically, I'm terribly moderate. There are things from both sides of the aisle that I like (I won't get into that here...even if we are off-topic...I will say that I have voted for guys on both sides of the aisle for Pres. Our last governor's race though (NJ) I refused to vote for either of the real candidates and instead went with the dark horse as a protest vote. One guy wants to take my job [the one who won] and the other wanted to continue to take money from my check [the jerk who lost].) I'm too pragmatic with politics because I am mindful that I'm in a different tax bracket....when your income becomes larger, you tend to listen to the folks who want to keep more money in your pocket. Of course many of those folks are wack-jobs so you have to take some stuff from the other guys who tend to balance them out (and many of them are also wack-jobs...but again, balance).

    Getting back into Net Neutrality....this is another step for the government to take back control of the Internet. Once it's complete, 1984 will be more than just a work of fiction; it will be a way of life. Be careful what you wish for.....I do not see this as a good thing for any of us.
  • eMeSeMeS Member Posts: 1,875
    powerfool wrote: »
    Government involvement is the end for smaller competitors. It always is.

    No. Terribly out of touch with reality as well.

    The reason regulation is necessary is because large corporations are basically the same as gangs. The bigger they get, the more power they have, and the better able they are to control their hoods, I mean markets. Large corporations are almost always bad actors; regulation tends to keep their power and behavior in check, which allows small players to compete.

    Republicans claim to be for small business, but they're not. They're 100% a subsidiary of every large company out there.

    See Enron, and oh about the last 3 years of economic fallout for examples of why large corporations are almost always bad actors and complete deregulation of any industry is a bad idea.

    I'm in no way suggesting that government is perfect, but they're definitely a lot less dangerous than large corporations.

    MS
  • apena7apena7 Member Posts: 351
    eMeS wrote: »
    I'm in no way suggesting that government is perfect, but they're definitely a lot less dangerous than large corporations.

    Sorry, eMeS. I really respect your opinion, but that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. A large corporation can fail or replaced by another (refer to your own example of Enron) but a government cannot (well, at least not without blood in the streets). I'm calling tommyrot and I would like you to show me an example of a large corporation with limitless power that has acted more dangerously than a government with limitless power.
    Usus magister est optimus
  • Excellent1Excellent1 Member Posts: 461 ■■■■■■□□□□
    eMeS wrote: »
    Republicans claim to be for small business, but they're not. They're 100% a subsidiary of every large company out there.

    This is exactly the kind of over-simplified, stereotypical partisanship I was referencing earlier. I apologize for being blunt, but it must be done: EVERY political party is and has been compromised by the money of large corporations. One can talk about the evil republicans all you want, but without acknowledging their equally evil counterparts, you show yourself as being unable to acknowledge the facts as history records them.

    Some regulation is necessary, and in some situations that must be done by the government, there is no doubt about it. However, it is one of many popular fallacies that only Dem's are for regulation and the evil greedy Republicans are against it. There have been numerous examples and cases where it has been the other way around (see Fannie and Freddie).

    Most people seem to look at government like they do their sports teams. They pick a team and defend them all the way to hell and back, even when it's obvious they suck. Why? It's certainly not rational. The simple fact is that most professional athletes wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. While that may be an inelegant statement, it conveys a simple truth. Yet, we all have friends (or may be one of those indivduals ourselves) that will argue and rationalize and justify and otherwise defend our "team" to the ends of the earth. While some see this as harmless fun where sports are concerned (try telling that to the people killed in soccer match stampedes), it is not harmless and it is not productive in the arena of politics.

    The government should be viewed as what it is: a collection of individuals primarily concerned with consolidating power and using said power for their own personal ends. Those personal ends may well be for what they view as the good of their constituents, but more often is for the good of the special interests that put them in power to begin with. That's all of them, not just one party or the other. Are there exceptions? Sure. However, in the realm of net neutrality, as in all else, we should view the government with a healthy dose of skepticism and resort to their intervention in anything as a last resort. To do anything else is to put on our partisan "team" glasses and ignore history and the track record of government.
  • RobertKaucherRobertKaucher A cornfield in OhioMember Posts: 4,299 ■■■■■■■■■■
    powerfool wrote: »
    Who will watch the watcher? There is no need to protect the "original Internet"... it is gone, things change. Gosh, I wish we could have protected the horse and buggy better...

    You talk about consolidating power, but the government has the greatest concentration of power... and giving them more will give more leverage to corporation that try and get peddled influence.

    Think about it.... Wal-Mart is in favor of increases to the minimum wage. Why? They lose money if they are forced to pay more than the current wages, right? Nope. They can deal with that impact, but their competitors cannot. Government involvement is the end for smaller competitors. It always is.

    Why do you keep insisting that I think the Government needs to do this? I don't. But I also don't think corporations should be allowed to just do what ever the heck they want.

    If we as a nation do not plan our portion of the Internet and do not lead in conjunction with other democratic powers the larger nations who have the will and power to control the Internet will.

    Recall a few months ago when China began diverting traffic and then called "ooops!" - Well they said "oops" but I thougt "Proof-of-concept."

    The original United States are also far and long gone, but we still hold to ideals set down back then. And that is what I am suggesting here. There are certain ideals that the original Internet grew up on and we can still plan our future on those ideals. If we do not plan and lead based on our values - then other nations and corporations will do it for us.
  • mickeycoronadomickeycoronado Member Posts: 71 ■■□□□□□□□□
    This is the off topic section and I have enjoyed reading everybody's opinions on things so you don't have to listen to me if you don't want to but, I am (as I'm sure many people are) burnt on politics after the midterm blitz. I realize this is a very political subject so maybe it was unavoidable.

    I was hoping to here more input on the technical parts of it, some pros cons etc. Would it be possible to have more tech examples thrown in there with the political ones?

    (again off topic, do as you please)
    "Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?!"
  • tpatt100tpatt100 Member Posts: 2,991 ■■■■■■■■■□
    Meh I just want more broadband choices....
  • chmorinchmorin Member Posts: 1,446 ■■■■■□□□□□
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    FCC Gives Government Power to Regulate Web Traffic - WSJ.com

    That is all. (Like hell I'm jumping in this debate XD)
    Currently Pursuing
    WGU (BS in IT Network Administration) - 52%| CCIE:Voice Written - 0% (0/200 Hours)
    mikej412 wrote:
    Cisco Networking isn't just a job, it's a Lifestyle.
  • powerfoolpowerfool Senior Member Member Posts: 1,649 ■■■■■■■■□□
    Why do you keep insisting that I think the Government needs to do this? I don't. But I also don't think corporations should be allowed to just do what ever the heck they want.

    Who exactly are you proposing do this? Any group that would be appointed, or even elected, to do this would be a "government" entity, whether in actuality or as a de facto entity.
    If we as a nation do not plan our portion of the Internet and do not lead in conjunction with other democratic powers the larger nations who have the will and power to control the Internet will.

    Hmm, you used a key word there.... "plan"

    You see, you can keep trying to spin things as much as you like, your intent is for the government to do this. Seriously, just speak clearly and openly... you are discrediting yourself with all of the diversion.
    Recall a few months ago when China began diverting traffic and then called "ooops!" - Well they said "oops" but I thougt "Proof-of-concept."

    The original United States are also far and long gone, but we still hold to ideals set down back then. And that is what I am suggesting here. There are certain ideals that the original Internet grew up on and we can still plan our future on those ideals. If we do not plan and lead based on our values - then other nations and corporations will do it for us.

    Yes, the ideals of the Internet were openness and limited interference... what you suggest is counter to those ideals.
    AZ-204 [ ] AZ-400 [X] AZ-500
    2020 Goals: Azure Developer Associate, Azure DevOps Expert, Azure Security Associate
  • powerfoolpowerfool Senior Member Member Posts: 1,649 ■■■■■■■■□□
    chmorin wrote: »
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    FCC Gives Government Power to Regulate Web Traffic - WSJ.com

    That is all. (Like hell I'm jumping in this debate XD)

    Here's the thing, though... the FCC does not have the authority to grant power. Congress has to authorize it, signed by the POTUS, and upheld as Constitutional by the judiciary. They claim a lot... and maybe it will play out that everything is "up and up" with this...
    AZ-204 [ ] AZ-400 [X] AZ-500
    2020 Goals: Azure Developer Associate, Azure DevOps Expert, Azure Security Associate
  • RobertKaucherRobertKaucher A cornfield in OhioMember Posts: 4,299 ■■■■■■■■■■
    All I know is that we are at a cross road in History. It's one we might take very slowly, or we might rush through it - but we must take it deliberately because the fututre of our global civilization will be forever changed by how we, the US as a nation, and the world decide to treat this Internet thing. And I believe inaction is as poor of a choice as over-regulation.
    ...

    This idea of "Just let the market settle it" is not going to work. This is too important of a question to allow it to evolve naturally because it is not natural. We have too many large companies with tons of money who will drive it into a way to get the biggest chunk of change out of it that they can. "We the people" need to ensure this is resolved in a way that inovation and free exchange of information are all protected to the extreme.
    powerfool wrote: »
    Hmm, you used a key word there.... "plan"

    You see, you can keep trying to spin things as much as you like, your intent is for the government to do this. Seriously, just speak clearly and openly... you are discrediting yourself with all of the diversion.
    What you don't seem to understand is that I repeatedly used terms like delibrate, and not evolve naturally (if something does not evolve naturally it is likely something that is planned).

    I also stated that the idea of a watching entity would be my ideal and that I in fact had no answers. That is a total pipe dream. No group like that currently exists and I doubt ever could due to the greedy and power hungry nature of individuals. If the government could actually ensure that the ideals I value in the Internet could be kept alive I would be happy to have them take it over - but they are the number one group I believe that threatens those ideals. If we as a nation do not have some sort of discourse on this and do not engage our engineers and scientists and just let it be, we will not be happy with the way things develop.

    You however, seem to think that simply using Libertarian buz words like free market and saying "government bad" makes you right and me wrong when I infact agree with easily 90% of what you are saying. Where I disagree with you is that I do not see the Internet as a commodity - which I believe you do. Please correct my if I am wrong. I see it as something much larger than that which will be as influential on the trajectory of humanity over the next few hundred years as technologies like bronze and iron were in the ancient world. Civilizations may rise and fall by it (look at Iran in their last election, the control China needs to take). But the world is far smaller now and we have over 2 thousand years of history to learn from. We can let the warlords do their thing - or we can stand up and say, "That's not what we want." But first we have to figure out what we do want. Or it's useless. If we cannot come to some sort of agreement about how the Internet needs to be planned and how it should opperate, then your idea is the only one that makes sense. But how do we know there is nothing better unless we cosider alternates?

    I think you just want me to say I want the Government to control the Internet and then shut up and admit you are right but I don't know that you are and I don't want Government control. I also don't want ISPs throttling competitors bits, or deciding which sites I am allowed to visit, or inspecting my packets. As a Nation and a world we could do things differently here. But likely we won't.

    So I will be clear - There is no entity like the one I described. If one did exist in our current univers, I would fear and distrust it. Because it could not work the way I want it to in my Gene Roddenberry imagination. Can you imagine an organization of people that could give up the desire for power in an effor to do something the right way for the benefit of all humanity? They would all ride unicorns on rainbow highways to work every morning!
Sign In or Register to comment.