I don't think these people are on our side.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kozmcrae May 18, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
I followed the link and became suspicious immediately. This site is *against* Net Neutrality, not for it. I checked one of their supporters sites and found this title "Network Neutrality Is a Terrible Idea" from the Reason Foundation. At least I thought LXer was for Net Neutrality. Isn't it? |
| jdixon May 18, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
> At least I thought LXer was for Net Neutrality. Isn't it? I don't think LXer has taken a formal position. I suspect that most of the people who post here trust the telco's and cable companies as far as they can throw them (myself included), so most of us are probably in favor of the concept, though we may disagree with any particular legislation. |
| grouch May 18, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
Is it news that affects Linux and likely of interest to LXer readers? |
| jimf May 18, 2006 7:37 PM EDT |
The stated goals are certainly what we as Linux users want, so yes, I assume it is pertinent for LXer. Should we also be suspicious? Absolutely. |
| grouch May 18, 2006 7:53 PM EDT |
jimf: Notice that the "Coalition" wants to be free of government regulation. Kinda like "freedom to innovate". The telcos want to be able to charge premium access rates per website, per business, per person, with no interference from gubmint. |
| jimf May 18, 2006 8:35 PM EDT |
Ahh! As in freedom to rape and pillage. |
| grouch May 18, 2006 8:48 PM EDT |
jimf: It's gotten to the point we need to carry translators around to figure out the doubleplus feelgoodspeak. Something labelled "open" might slam a cage door behind us. "Trusted" may mean someone has you so much under control you can't sneeze without permission. "Freedom" could mean for the slave owner. Context and messenger are needed to determine which dictionary is in use. Here's a quote to keep in mind: "Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.interne... |
| Sander_Marechal May 18, 2006 9:15 PM EDT |
From the website:
"The term “Network Neutrality” refers to broad, sweeping new regulations on the Internet that would put the government in charge of the structure and pricing of Internet services." Wrong. Net Neutrality is about making sure that the internet is a level playing field free of arbitrary taxation (extortion) by the major telco's. It's FUD of the worst kind. See http://www.savetheinternet.com/=lie Slightly o.t: I see lots of Microsoft sponsored groups as supporters on that website but I thought MS was against the big telco's on this one? |
| jimf May 18, 2006 9:25 PM EDT |
So grouch, it's critical that 'news' like this appear on LXer so that we can debunk it, and find the real truth. I'm sure this is confusing to all too many people. |
| grouch May 18, 2006 9:34 PM EDT |
jimf: I agree completely. Not only does it get some eyes on it here, but the traffic LXer sends to these stories lets the news channels know somebody is interested. It can lead to better follow-ups. Since it's tied to legal issues and to FUD, as sander pointed out, I'm a little surprised it hasn't been dissected on Groklaw yet. There are some geek/lawyers there. Maybe that's coming. |
| Libervis May 19, 2006 3:50 AM EDT |
I certainly hope groklaw will grok this. This is a second site in a rather short period of time that I am seeing. Another one is http://www.handsofftheinternet.com (they picked a name very similar to a name of another *pro-net neutrality* campaign). It appears that the US telcos are trying to simulate or even entice a grassroots movement in their favour by exploiting the tendency of people to be against government interventions. We well know that at this point government involvement is needed in some cases to preserve a free market (think antitrust law), and this is one such case. |
| NoDough May 19, 2006 4:38 AM EDT |
As the poster (of the article), I agree with the title of this thread. I (also) don't think these people are on our side. However, I'm not certain that I agree with the legislation. I certainly agree with it in spirit, but I don't necessarily agree that good behavior can or should be legislated/regulated. I believe that if you allow a business to behave badly, market pressures will either bring it back in line, or kill it. For instance, if we allow the phone/cable companies to make stupid moves (discriminative pricing, bandwidth limitations, site blocking, etc.), then eventually enough of us geeks would be upset that we would simply build our own Internet connected wireless mesh. With enough users it could displace the phone/cable carriers over time. However, if we force the bad boys to act like good boys, then we haven't the motivation to build a replacement. Also, I believe that the 'Coalition' is correct on one point. Once the government starts regulating something, there is no end to additional regulations that come along. And frankly, I don't trust the government any more than big business. |
| jdixon May 19, 2006 5:37 AM EDT |
> I believe that if you allow a business to behave badly, market pressures will either bring it back in line, or kill it. That's true if there's competition. Unfortunately, in many areas, broadband service is only available from a single source (usually either a telco or a cable company). That's true where I live. A DSL line is only available from Verizon, and we can't get cable. We can get the actual service from a number of people, but Verizon controls the line, which means they can implement any bandwith management scheme they want (whether this would violate their contract with the actual service provider, and whether the provider is in a position to do anything about such a violation are matters outside the scope of this post) and we're stuck with it. |
| jimf May 19, 2006 5:54 AM EDT |
> I believe that if you allow a business to behave badly, market pressures will either bring it back in line, or kill it. I think that economic theory has long since been disproven. I don't know if government is the answer either, but trusting business to regulate it's self is madness. |
| Libervis May 19, 2006 6:15 AM EDT |
> I believe that if you allow a business to behave badly, market pressures will either bring it back in line, or kill it. Well it didn't kill Microsoft, even though Microsoft has gained alot of what it has through corrupting government itself, the sheer luck of being "in the right place and at the right time" (as is often said) gave them a chance to abuse the opportunity to monopolize, which they certainly took it, as any other business not caring about anything but it's bottom line would do. It seems some regulation is needed. It's not a perfect world and that's not a perfect solution, but we ought to weigh our options and choose the lesser evil, at least. Actually there is a point about this government intervention not being a "regulation" of the internet at all: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/367 That seems to make sense to me. |
| NoDough May 19, 2006 7:29 AM EDT |
>That's true if there's competition. Unfortunately, in many areas, broadband service is only available from a single source (usually either a telco or a cable company). Agreed. Competitive forces are completely negated when dealing with a monopoly. Government is supposed to be protecting us from monopoly powers, but we've seen how effective that is. (*cough*microsoft*cough*) >I think that economic theory has long since been disproven. Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? >...trusting business to regulate it's self is madness. Well, I don't think that's entirely true. Trusting monopolies to regulate themselves is madness. For the most part, business people are no different than you and I. No better, no worse. There are, of course, individual examples of some that are much worse, and some that are much better. I'm not suggesting that businesses regulate themselves, but that they are regulated by a competitive marketplace. This theory doesn't apply to monopolies. >Well it didn't kill Microsoft,... As you pointed out, Microsoft is an abusive monopoly acting with the full cooperation of the government. Market pressures have little or no effect on monopolies (in fact, visa versa. Monopolies actively manipulate market pressures.) Team up a monopoly with the government and you have the ultimate evil. Still, I believe that Linux is making headway and will one day force Microsoft to stop some of their more abusive practices. Also, I know that the opinions I presented in my previous post are based on ideals and there are several good arguments against those ideals. |
| jimf May 19, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
> I believe that if you allow a business to behave badly, market pressures will either bring it back in line, or kill it. Taken at face value that's Laissez-faire at it's rawest. This only works if you put your next statement, and other restrictions, into effect. > This theory doesn't apply to monopolies And that in and of itself is an example of Government having to regulate Business. Really we are 'mainly' talking about Corporations here. There are a number of other examples including but not limited to loan rates, selective taxation tariffs, and regulation of the handling of stocks that immediately come to mind. When government fairly apples these regulations then 'something like' a fair playing field emerges. This leveling of the playing field is also what's necessary on the Internet. At least that's the theory... But, that's only if Government does its job, and as long as I can remember that doesn't seem to be what's happening. > I'm not suggesting that businesses regulate themselves, but that they are regulated by a competitive marketplace. Even with that, the evidence is that, it's only effective on a relatively small, local, and non-corporate model. > I believe that Linux is making headway and will one day force Microsoft to stop some of their more abusive practices. We've seen amazing progress in spite of the opposition, but, it sure would help if government stopped backing them. > I know that the opinions I presented in my previous post are based on ideals and there are several good arguments against those ideals. Bet your sweet bippy on that one :D |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!