Comments on Don't Feed the Animals: Net Neutrality: Why You Should Care

Yes, I would like to point out that it was Sebasti...

2009-11-03T19:16:51.074-05:00

Yes, I would like to point out that it was Sebastian who made the "free" comment. If I used the word "free," I meant it as in "libre" as opposed to "gratis."

Agreed. Wasn't suggesting Spam related to net ...

2009-11-03T18:43:36.170-05:00

Agreed. Wasn't suggesting Spam related to net neutrality, but to the notion that the net was FREE (in the fiscal sense, costing no dollars, rather than the sense of rights and privileges, i.e. freedom). It's being (almost) free in this regard (which it isn't at my end ;-) is a strong contributor to its abuse.

Neutrality in the sense of your article is indeed another thing. But it's also different from it's being free. it can be neutral in this sense but still cost us, as long as the cost is impartial with regards to the content of the data being transferred (places I visit, things I look at etc). Much in the way that the price of petrol is (more or less) independent of where I drive and what I do there (in an urban context at least). So too, my being billed for time on-line or even bits delivered and sent is not in conflict with neutrality.

Spam is a problem that is totally separate from th...

2009-11-01T23:44:06.043-05:00

Spam is a problem that is totally separate from the Net Neutrality debate. In my opinion, it is minor in comparison. Yes, spam is a big deal, but it is a tech issue more than a policy issue.

"I like the Internet because it is really FRE...

2009-11-01T21:53:04.825-05:00

"I like the Internet because it is really FREE"

You have free internet? Where do I sign up?

Seriously, even if it were free, and I suspect you meant free of control more strongly than free of hip pocket impact, I'm not convinced that's all it's cracked up to be.

We have a problem on the internet present that consumes a significant proportion of the total bandwidth and time and energy of its users which exists primarily because it's pretty cheap, to the point of almost free for some and certainly imposes no realistic costs ... it is called spam.

We are left to wonder how many more decades of bickering among internet pundits, between technical and social controls must go on before this ostensibly simple problem is eradicated or at least reigned in to the level of junk mail and unsolicited phone calls today (and even those we continue to reign in and constrain further because even print media, phone calls and call centre labour are so cheap that it's worthwhile to impose more than we like upon us).

You'll have to be a bit more specific about &q...

2009-10-26T14:37:08.218-04:00

You'll have to be a bit more specific about "what I said at the beginning" because I'm not sure how I should respond to you. Clear that up and I'll be glad to give you a response.

I agree, but I'm not so sure about what you sa...

2009-10-26T14:31:40.755-04:00

I agree, but I'm not so sure about what you said at the beginning. Where are you getting your information? I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Justin Davis
Author does not represent the position of LSI, which screens content as an internet filter to K-12 institutions.

Ah, now you're thinking, rather than just stri...

2009-10-25T09:36:47.415-04:00

Ah, now you're thinking, rather than just striking things down -- good.

Certainly, different methods work for different countries, systems. There's even a place for dictatorship... in the right place, at the right time...!

I like the Internet because it is really FREE -- free from labeling, too. It's a good thing, or a bad thing -- all depending on how you use it.

I agree that it should remain free to all -- that's the fundamental point of it, to enable education and quick movement of data -- but don't forget that it has to continue being UPGRADED.

Internet 2 has to become a reality, and then Internet 3. For the speeds and connectivity to keep on increasing, we rely on private investors.

If more governments want to sign up and spend billions on infrastructure, then sure -- but right now there's only a handful of countries where that happens.

The way I see it, the better countries to live in ...

2009-10-25T00:11:02.372-04:00

The way I see it, the better countries to live in these days are the socialist ones. I'd be interested to have some of the info you're basing your opinions off of in any case.

Things progress in phases. Now, if you say capitalism has gotten the internet this far, regardless of if that is accurate or not, we can't just assume it will be right going forward. After all, many governing systems have their sweet spots in terms of population size or economy size. I think the internet structure has outgrown capitalism.

Hehe, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint. Do y...

2009-10-24T22:36:24.165-04:00

Hehe, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.

Do you think such networks would ever have existed in the first place under democratic socialism?

Do you think, without proof of concept, that anyone would jump on the bandwagon?

No. Private investors made the Internet possible. The alumni of universities made it possible.

And now the government/regulators should suddenly lay claim to the invention, to the rights, to the governance...?

Obviously, free speech is always great. But if you think of free speech as the 'inspiration' behind something -- what about the 'perspiration' bit?

Do you actually think the world would be in the same place it is today if England/America/Other Technology-Rich Nations were more socialist than capitalist?

It is OK to be a theoretical idealist -- ish -- but you have to try and remain a practical realist too!

Oh one small addendum to the comment above: I mean...

2009-10-24T22:05:27.439-04:00

Oh one small addendum to the comment above: I meant "democratic socialism"

You should know I'm all for socialism. So, if ...

2009-10-24T22:03:47.008-04:00

You should know I'm all for socialism. So, if it comes down to the government stepping in and telling a company that it needs to be run a certain way for the COMMON GOOD, I am all for it. This is a great example of it.

Besides, the ISPs are using terrible arguments to support their claims. The US pays more for their internet access than most of the civilized world, yet the average connection speed is abysmal. They are doing a horrible job right now and there is no reason to believe they would do any better if given free reign.

On the other hand, my main argument, which is all this debate should really be about, is that the freedom of the average user needs to be preserved. If that benefits the software companies, so be it. No matter what, users should have equal access to the same internet as everyone else without having to pay extra for various parts of it or be blocked from accessing sites by arbitrary rules. End of story.

OK -- if Sainsburys decided to stop stocking a spe...

2009-10-24T21:52:51.265-04:00

OK -- if Sainsburys decided to stop stocking a specific product, because they felt like it, do you think you could run to a regulator and get them to restock it...?

I agree, in this situation, given the implicit upstream agreements that the Internet runs on, that there isn't really any other solution here.

But it's very easy to hate the big players. It's very easy to hide behind a blog and sling shit at someone like Microsoft or Verizon or (insert other tyrannical overlord here)

In fact, that's exactly what Google & Co. are doing -- they know they're unimpeachable.

I just imagine if Google had laid all the cables, a different story might be unfolding.

Btw, most big cables are privately funded.

ISPs get paid by consumers and the government alre...

2009-10-24T21:46:34.663-04:00

ISPs get paid by consumers and the government already. They didn't invest billions on the off-chance that legislature would go their way. They are already compensated for their role. Their attempts to abolish Net Neutrality are power plays.

Of course its the software industry that is for net neutrality. Their products can be rendered useless if a large ISP decides to screw around. What's your point?

Hmm... Did you even take a moment to view the sit...

2009-10-24T21:02:56.869-04:00

Hmm...

Did you even take a moment to view the situation from the POV of a company that has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure?

Say you spend $1 million on a really fast car. Would you want someone else to dictate how often you lend that car to people you don't know, for a nominal fee?

(Lame analogy, but perhaps you get the idea.)

Not that I disagree with 'Net neutrality, but still... it's the SOFTWARE and SERVICE industry that are FOR net neutrality -- they USE the network, just like you and I. They don't own it -- that's Verizon, UUNET, Ignite, etc.

No objection here. I thank you for explaining Net ...

2009-10-23T18:34:59.253-04:00

No objection here. I thank you for explaining Net Nuetrality in more laymens' terms. When you state, "...I fear that many people may not be aware of how important it is." I couldnt agree more. Up to a couple months ago, I was ignorant of Net Nuetrality. Now, I am more education.