On the Fence About Net Neutrality?

Umm you are missing the point. The government is trying to keep the internet open and free like it was when it was a small no profit system. The corporations are trying to gain more control over who can communicate and how much they must pay for priorities. So you actually have it just backwards the governments role here is to attempt to keep the freedoms we have become accustomed to, while corporations are the ones trying to stifle free speach opportunities.

Wow! Thanks! for our thoughts, I agree.

This is not an Obama thing, or even the prior administations. Its about fee for service and access to something we all take for granted now. I don't think Global Spec could afford to keep this Forum running if access to the web is governed by supply and demand principles. I'm not sure who exactly would gain if access is changed, but I'm sure its a far fewer number of people (companies) than one would think. Those who own the "Wired Backbone" sections and "Satallite" links would be some of the main winners I think.

The financial crisis which is still occuring, and has effected most americans by now, was in part caused by the restriction of information.

Thanks,

To all these people who "don't trust the government" but are willing to trust AT&T...get real.

So I'm not the only one who remembers the days when we were only allowed to use a phone leased from the phone company & ITT mercilessly crushed any competition [anyone remember In Like Flynn?].

Net Neutrality is about maintaining a free market on the internet

All the attempts to reframe the argument will fail, with out actual Data to support the cries of censorship

who am I to let reality get in the way of a good rant?

When business fails to police itself effectively government will step in to fill the void, see the oil spill in the gulf, see wallstreet, see banking.

And just how effectively has the government dealt with the oil spill, with Wall Street, with Banking, with Katrina, with Haiti, with the economy in general? Especially with Wall Street and banking- those that got us into the mess in the first place are still in charge...and still earning the same outrageous compensation. The latest "Financial Reform" adds several layers of regulatory bureaucracy, and those in charge of regulation are projecting significant increases in the cost of regulation, with no clear idea how such regulation is to be implemented...

Aren't you giving a good example of when business gets too much charge to the point of substantially influencing government to allow special considerations, unlike net neutrality. The problem that allowed business to grow to that level was the deregualtion of those business activities over the previous 25 years. Deregulated they grew to a point of governemntal influence to be able to claim to be to big to fail. In addition, the change in regulations after the valdez to allow big oil to try and clean up its messes before the government stepped in has lead to the problem, deregulation again under the guise of cutting government costs. The government wqs not prepared to have to take on the responsibility because the oil companies were supposed to have the contingencies to handle such problems, plus the enforcements agencies could not step in since they had to allow the oil comp[anies the opportunity to clean their own mess, by law. So all you have really done is shown how deregulation and the allowance for corporations to fix their own messes never works, since there is no money in it for them.

We appear to view government efficacy from two different perspectives. Apparently, what you perceive as successful government intervention, I perceive as failure. Corporations fail as well, I do not deny that. What is very, very obvious is that, no matter what regulatory process you put in place, there are going to be those that figure out how to circumvent the regulations, either legally or illegally.

Returning to the original topic, "Net Neutrality", just exactly what issue is the government addressing with these proposed new regulations? Where are the indications that some are denied access to some legitimate content? Do these new proposed regulations actually address a perceived problem, or are we dealing with Doublespeak to mask the true agenda of the government? Do you really want the government to control your access to information?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-06/comcast-wins-in-case-on-fcc-net-neutrality-powers-update6-.html

Quoting directly from the referenced article:

"...by moving Internet service under telephone rules --a step Scott said could be taken with a simple majority vote at the Democrat-dominated agency. Such a reclassification of Internet service would have "far-reaching and destructive consequences" including "years of "investment-deterring uncertainty and litigation,"

i.e., attempts by the government to control content on the web could actually result in less content being available for all...

Without more detail than has been provided in the report, it is impossible to fully analyze the impact of this decision. It sounds like Comcast was "prioritizing" traffic, not to block access to particular sites, but, rather, to reduce congestion resulting from high-band-width traffic...But I don't have enough detail to say for sure.

Actually, it is not stating anything about attempts by the government to control content, but rather attempts by comcast to block or slow content distributions, effectively controlling what people view. The FCC was censuring comcast for this apparent behavior. What the article actually describes is how corporations could under the current ruling control or manipulate the distribution of content that is not their own. So in the future, you would have to have comcast approved for a small fee content to be able to connect to a website. So maybe like my cable service, you get the gold package and get one level of approval for content, silver package something lesser, and so forth. Not on comcast, well you may not be able to connect at all, or the d/l speed would be slowed extraordinarily for pass through their network, unless you paid the premiums. I am not really sure though if this is so bad, maybe comcast should be able to charge software developers for access, they did build the network, if it would lower my cable bill....

Context is everything

here's a little more of the article surrounding the bit you cherry picked

The FCC is taking comments until April 8 on net neutrality rules that would forbid companies from favoring content they own, and from blocking or slowing rivals' services.

Today's decision "represents a severe limitation on the agency's future authority" to regulate companies' activities on the Internet, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a Washington-based attorney who helped defend the FCC's position in the case, in an interview.

The FCC may appeal the case, and may "seriously consider" placing Internet services into a stricter regulatory classification, said Andrew Lipman, a Washington-based partner in the media, telecommunications and technology practice at Bingham McCutchen LLP, in an interview.

'Destructive Consequences'

Scott, the Free Press policy director, said the decision leaves FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski "powerless to stop people from blocking Web sites, unless he acts to reassert his authority" by moving Internet service under telephone rules --a step Scott said could be taken with a simple majority vote at the Democrat-dominated agency.

Such a reclassification of Internet service would have "far-reaching and destructive consequences" including "years of "investment-deterring uncertainty and litigation," companies including AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable Inc. said in a Feb. 22 letter to the FCC.

The Open Internet Coalition said the FCC should "clarify its authority" over providers of Internet service.

Internet Users

Verizon said in a statement that the court's decision would have "no impact" on Internet users whose "interests remain fully protected." The court recognized the FCC has authority over Internet access, said Verizon General Counsel Randal Milch in the statement.

On Jan. 13, FCC senior counselor Colin Crowell said in an e-mail that if the appeals court "removed the legal foundations of the agency's current policy framework, the commission would act expeditiously to ensure that consumers are fully protected."

Separately, the FCC and the Justice Department are reviewing Comcast's proposed $28 billion deal for control of General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal unit.

The government stepped in after BP stuck their fingers in their ears & said la la la, the drilling industry has not done their due diligence & devoted adequate resources to research into the emergency response procedures necessary for the drilling of wells in deeper & deeper water.

banking went nuts after deregulation, just like the saving & loan industry did after they were deregulated

Corporate personhood has not been accompanied by a commensurate amount of corporate responsibility

regulation doesn't come about because the various industries have done such a fine job of acting responsibly & regulating themselves

public outcry preceded all major regulatory adjustments.

was the governments response correct,

Doubt it

but what can you expect?

the industries regulated have proven themselves incapable of restraining themselves time after time.

Maybe it is better for the government to plan ahead in regulation, rather then a knee jerk response to public outcry, buffered strongly by industry lobbyist and funding, when deregulated industries go afoul.

I find it intersting, banks became regulated because last time they went nuts and got in bed with the stock market investors they created the great depression. There was a reason for the regulations, but over time they wore the public down as we forgot the last depression.

Maybe the answer is to change corporate legal status such that a person or persons are personally responsible for the corporations action with regards to criminal activities and prosecutions. If CEOs had to do prison time on behalf of their corporation, like any individual would for their own criminal acts, things might be different. As it stands, by claiming ignorance, no one seems to ever be responsible for the crimial acts of corporations, just point fingers and claim ignorance. CEOs might have a different perspective on how their companies operate if they had to spend a few years in Soledad or Pelican Bay. also, may be they should set higher tiers for criminality, much like the existing lower tiers, when it comes to financial crimes. Also, as it is a crime to profit from ones criminal endeavors, and the governemnt seems to have no problem taking money and property from relatively poor local drug dealers and other minor criminals (including any properties that are financed from comingled funds). Do the same to the CEOs and such, the law already exist. There needs to be some risk for the Executives of these companies, beside the chance of losing their jobs and going on their golden parachute retirements (which the government could take as profits from criminal acts also). The one thing that a CEO definitely would respond to is the possibility that they would be broken and impoverished due to their management of a corporation that conducts itself in a criminal manner. Of course this would require enforcement, and even though the laws exist, this is where the government seems to repeatedly drop the ball, almost as if they intended to take a dive and let the corporate executives off the hook (a bit like someone is paying them).

I don't trust either, but the government can and will use force to get their way. As to the proof, why don't you do some research about what is being proposed. The information is available. And just for the record, President Bush did not propose to take over the internet and the information outlets. Mr. Obama and his Democrat allies in congress have.

As to the proof, why don't you do some research about what is being proposed

sorry that's not how you convince anyone of the truth of your talking points

you're using repetition,

just keep repeating the same dis information, hoping it will stick

with no sources, we're not going to do your work for you

as if the republicans have proven themselves any more capable of legislating in the peoples best interests.

there's plenty of blame to go around

For those who are deaf, dumb and blind. Net neutrality is another tentacle of the current USA left wing government control being camouflaged in Utopian none threatening sounding words. A typical communist ploy that the media and most technologists cannot seem to grasp. Oh well--after it happens it seems the lights go on.

Look around and see what has happened in the months since the "Progressive" BHO comrades have taken control. Am I overstating? I don't think so because of the demonstrable takeovers executed by the BHO regime in the name of "Justice" and "Fairness" and the absolute need because of the "emergency".. All very utopian and rational.---If one is a complete idiot. No one seems to care that 90% of what is happening is unconstitutional and not one shot has been fired in the take over of private property. Who are the winners in this farce? Not the American people.

The FCC has become an operational control arm of the BHO regime.

I agree with what you are saying in spirit.

Here's a more comprehensive view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Do you actually have choices of ISP's ?

Personally I don't,

the cell coverage in this area doesn't support web services, there are no cable providers, so the twisted pair [dsl] is the only choice. my isp doesn't have any particular bandwidth restrictions.

we are not talking about regulation of content [yet]

Comcast would like to restrict streaming video that would compete with their cable TV services. comcast has a virtual monopoly in many markets for the fastest broadband connections...

most of us are old enough to remember when ITT [AT&T] was the only phone company & how expensive long distance calls were before that monopoly was broken up, anyone care to go back?

Sorry Jack [step away from the right wing blogs] this predates the current administration

FCC broadband policy statement

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open Internet,^[13] "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:"

• access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

These points are often summarized as "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider"

some of you will probably remember this from last month

http://www.macworld.com/article/151710/2010/06/attwirelessplans.html

Realistic pricing plans are not a threat to an open internet

Then how should the Comcast situation be handled?

They are blocking not content, but methods, in an attempt to reduce competition to other parts of their business.

should companies be regulated at all?

a company like comcast produces & delivers [more than one way] content.

Someone has to administer the bandwidth...

.

should the government be involved with rural infrastructure projects?

roads, electrification & communication grids

none of which make much sense in terms of Return On Investment

How should these sorts of project be financed & administered?

I do not trust governments. But then, neither did the Founding Fathers.

Why this arbitrary preference for corporations over government? Corporations are in it to make money. In my experience, ethics, morality and the common good are more prone to attack by those seeking profit than by those seeking order.

I can give a very simple answer, I do not trust any corporation to choose what information I can or do receive. If I do not like a corporation I do not purchase their products. The government does not give you that choice. Mr. Obama and his left wing allies in congress have PUBLICALLY stated that they want the conservative voices n the media silenced because they do not support his Marxist agenda. Part of this so called net neutrality gives Mr. Obama the power to shut down the net when he decides there is an emergency, no act of congress, no checks and balances. How much do you want to bet there will be an "emergency" whenever he wants to do something or ram something unpopular through congress?

I do not blindly trust governments, I did not agree with somethings President Bush did and I certainly do not agree with Mr Obama's actions or agenda.

Hear hear!

So you want to go back to ITT/comcast being the only game in town?

with out some regulation, in very short order there won't be a choice

Businesses seek to increase their market share, by driving their competition out of business.

All strict constructionist platitudes make great talking points &

doing the institutional failure analysis is fine

but what is the solution?

I don't have comcast, I live too far out in the boonies to have cable

Comcast is the focus being the plaintiff in the case in opposition to the FCC's ruling for an open internet.

RCE has it right, the FCC is against regulation of Lawful [meaning no child porn] content & methods. bittorrents can be used to pirate copyrighted content, but just as easily used to transmit large legitimate files, with a error free quality a straight download can't match....

all the caterwauling about some alleged repression by the current administration is misdirection.

Every recent administration has publicly stated the wish that their opposition would shut up, all have used various methods [remember watergate?] to that end.

This administration isn't different in any significant way from the last, busy handing out favors to their friends.

However, do also remember that much of the legislating (and thus regulating) going on today is at the behest of those same corporate entities who donate so much money to the politicians doing the legislating. And there's no point in crying "foul!" over it either, as these entities are simply seeking to create a favorable regulatory climate for their business and to maximize their profits. If any of us had huge money on the line, we'd be doing exactly the same thing. This is simply human nature.

Isn't our duty as citizens to cry foul?

corporations should not enjoy the same [if not superior] rights as citizens

What do you think of the repeal of the fairness doctrine, years ago?

or the recent court ruling equating money with free speech?

The difference is this. When one becomes dissatisfied with a business entity, one may choose to take one's business elsewhere.

So, if we boycott British Petroleum that'll restore the billions of organisms recently snuffed out by their leaking well? I don't think that's what you suggest but if your thinking is as simplistic as your platitudes, it's a poor description of the real world.

No one's investing with Bernie Madoff or Enron either.

With a government on the other hand, the choice may not be available. Remember, business seeks to sell. Government seeks to control. Governments always seek greater and greater control over the governed. This is their nature. All governments, should they last long enough, tend towards the totalitarian, and always for the "greater good".

"We" fought off McCarthyism. There are always those wishing to ban guns, and they are struck down every time - well, they tend to lose more than they win. Republicans have successfully fought for looser regulations since about the time of Reagan, and I suggest we've seen the result of too little regulation.

As one of a multitude of examples I could cite, it is our government that is protecting the freedom of Muslims to worship here. Which corporation is going to stand up for that one?

This is a democratic nation, has been from the beginning, though some spans of time see it drifting to one side or another. If we don't like something, it is our power and duty to act to change it. The power to vote has not been rescinded. The courts still rule, to the consternation of many.

In the immortal words of Chairman Mao, "All power flows from the barrel of a gun."

He was stupid then. Power flows from the tip of the pen or the tongue, as well as the barrel of a gun.

IMHO, and that of the Framers, business is the lesser of two evils.

Why choose at all? Render unto Ceasar, etc.

What happens when you have to deal with a monopoly? Farmers in the 1800's were victimised by the big railroads, there were no other methods to ship long distance in most cases. It took the federal government to step in to break up railroad monopolies. You do not trust government - I do not trust corporations. In all fairness, corporations are not in business to be fair, they want profits. There is a place for government and a place for business.

If the founding fathers so hated governments why did they set one up?

The US government has at times overstepped but I still support it much more than any suggestions I hear from its detractors!

And actually part of the problem with the British government at the time opf Us independence was that business interests, including the Royal Family, ran the government frequently through monopolies, which are legal there. Those companies set policies and taxations to control busieness in the americas, and government taxes were collected to support those interests, along with the government administrative roles in support of those interests. The British Army frequently worked as agents of companies like the British East India trading company.

Net Neutrality from wiki or follow the links I provided in post 5

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.^[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Thanks, Garthh... I didn't really need some of the words linked to definitions. I'm not totally in the dark, technology-wise. I just didn't have time this morning to try to research exactly what the FCC's stance on this is, or what legislation might be in process.

Even though this seems to be a complex issue -- which always favors those with money and power -- the same basic philosophy of the golden rule should be a guiding factor in all decisions. And the prime question to me is, "What do we think the Internet should be? Should it be mostly about commerce? If so, then businesses should definitely have a say. Should it be considered mostly people-to-people communication? If so, then I think average single users should have the most say.

Another thread, here on CR4 is one such definition. I think keeping it as "neutral" as possible when it comes to how a users request is "processed" will lead to the best hope of a medium that could be for the greater good. In some ways, as I understand it, it becomes a matter of response speed and not whether there is censorship, whereby a user just doesn't get to the information he is trying to get to. Of course, I may misunderstand.

I was noticing that the original Blog entry was lacking any real definition of net neutrality.

Your post just gave me an excuse to post that bit [as if I needed one]

the net neutrality part isn't complicated, there shouldn't really be much disagreement...

& it is not unreasonable to have to pay more for better service...

I find at&t's plan in regards to Ipads & Iphones a reasonable method to control rising costs from sharply rising bandwidth usage, by users of these devices

Be part of the process submit a comment to the FCC in support of continued Net Neutrality

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

I worry that price inflation will begin to hit access and usage. No problem paying more for something more, but no one likes paying more for the same thing. Conservation of supply could easily be adopted by providers to raise revenue instead of offering better services for a higher price. Airline baggage fees come to mind.

Someone may say that this will be prevented by competition developing, but these networks are very expensive, Billions an Billions (as Carl Sagan would say) of $$ would be needed to set up alternatives.

Thanks,

Well the internets original purpose was not intended for business profiteering, but rather for the free discourse between scientist. So the question you are really asking is about whether we should let business interests usurp the intent of the internet in order to gain a controling interest over the technology and our communications ( in which case we would need to develop new systems to overcome the usurpation of our freedom to communicate). Or, alternately, should we maintain the original intent of open and free lines of communications for the public or at least scientists (practioners of the hard sciences, reflexology, biology, environmental sciences TBD). (Of course this does not address the burdening of the internet by business interests seeking to infilitrate our lives with their marketing noise). Businesses that develop technologies to improve communications should be rewarded financially, but they should not have control over the communications networks, otherwise they have to be licensed and strictly regulated much more like Radio and TV was in the old days before the new technologies evolved that compete substantially for the market share.

Huh? Unbelievable.

Which part ?

I find reality to be quite believable

you are welcome to give us all some idea of what the nature of the alleged conspiracy is & how it relates Net Neutrality.

"Well the internets original purpose was not intended for business profiteering, but rather for the free discourse between scientist."

OK. So explain to me your understanding and meaning of "for free discource" to be solely "between scientist" and "not intended for busines profiteering"?

So, what's "right" about "discource between scientist" and "wrong" about "business profiteering"?

But more to the crux of the issue is what is your understanding of "the internets original purpose"?

The Internet originated as the ARPAnet, a system connecting the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Department of Defense with several universities and contractors in a restricted network (requiring security clearance originally) designed to facilitate corroboration between participants in various projects. The original 4 node network was on line and functioning at the end of 1969, and not available to nor intended for the general public or commercial use.

Interesting that not one good answer

is on topic

Possibly

Would you leave it up to the providers to decide

• access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

I haven't heard any thing about any censorship of content, besides child porn, so hand wringing in anticipation of the possibility of government intervention is premature & off topic

the 2nd & 3rd being the heart of the issue

without some sort of subsidies, how can the 4th be accomplished? subsidies do not have to be public. the ISP's can do it themselves

& finally I didn't say that they weren't good answers, just not on topic

The discussion is not about content, unless of course you can come up with an example of the US government censoring something on the internet, as would china or even Australia [filtering]

it as if the the phone company is trying to tell you can't use a phone with a cord, even though it sends the same signals down the twisted pair...

ISP's should be able to charge for usage. I pay more for a DSL connection, because it's faster than a dial up connection. Should my provider want to charge me higher rates were I using lots of band width, downloading movies, well with in normal business practices

if the ISP told me I could only download from netflix, not from blockbuster, would that be acceptable?

say there were 100 choices of companies to download from, all treated the same... but if I were to get a discount for using ISP download...

I'm sorry that you have been fooled by the title. Censorship is exactly what this discussion is about. This regime wants to choose what information you are allowed to have and discuss. That particularly applies to political speech of the type that the first amendment was designed to protect.

Please show what leads you to that conclusion?

that Net Neutrality is in any way about censorship?

the FCC has been dealing with this since at least 2005.

follow the link to the FCC & make your voice heard...

most of this discussion has been about freedom, off topic, interesting, but off topic

The Patriot Act & the formation of Homeland Security have eroded our freedoms.

The fact that the Government is trying to impose controls on the Internet, coupled with the fact that the Government has the bad habit of disguising their real motivation behind "Doublespeak", suggests that the Government's efforts is EXACTLY about censorship. The Patriot Act is a very good example of how this process works, as is RICO (originally written for the specified purpose of prosecuting mafioso, RICO is a direct and blatant violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, and has rarely, if ever, been applied against mafioso- most commonly used to go after "public enemies" not generally connected with organized crime). The Government wraps nefarious actions in benign-sounding terminology so people don't realize the threat until it is too late. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is a perfect example of how this works, although he is not nearly as skilled at disguising his motives as is the US Government.

I'm not seeing the controls you are, I guess

I'm seeing the FCC trying to continue an open internet

someone has to do it, since the providers, have made their intentions clear

The media conglomerates have already greatly eroded the protections against monopoly. there is no effective industry group able to protect the consumer...

Personal Responsibility

I encourage everyone no matter what your feelings are, be heard

write a book or a sentence

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

& that is on topic

Here's where the corporations gained the upper hand & claimed our freedom for their organizations

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

The personhood of corporations under the constitution seems inconsistent with the original intent of the constitution. I definitely believe this is something that needs to be addressed. However, if you notice none of the amendments propose relating to limiting corporations rights (of which you should note corporations do have limited liabilities and responsibilities under the law) have been sponsored by a representative or senator. On the other hand, the concept of popular election was specifically avoided by the founding father, in part because of the problems it lead to in Athens having a true democracy (consider Alcibides as one example), as well as the use of various usurpers of the Roman republic who used their recently inflated popularity with poor masses (Caesar gave bread on returning to Rome to garner favor, Davie Crockett bought men drinks). Sometimes people in masses make bad long term decision based on small recent favors from others, emotional outcries, passions, and the peer pressures of others. That whole thing there would just lead to corporations and wealthy buying votes cheaply from the poor, without any proposals to really help them except some temporary token gifts.

It is a dirty game, politics. I constantly struggle with it philosophically. I know I am right that a town ought to function as a port, no matter how large or small.

There is something really weird about the personhood of corporations. I mean I sure feel like a corporation is a lot more powerful than I am as an individual in any conflict between myself and a corporation.

I was incorporated once, but didn't have the sense to get bought out, and just went under.

Far as Net Neutrality I am convinced you guys know more about it than I do, and look forward to an internationally applicable policy.

Thanks in advance.

I do not think you understand, I am just stazating the fact that the internet was originally developed for the free discourse between scientist not for business profiteering. I understand that the people involved in profiting from the communication over the internet feel this infringes on their rights to make money any way they feel. However, I was just addressing what the internet was actually originally intended to do. It has since drawn in people seeking to make money off the communication technologies and the communications itself. Basically it was a technology invented for experts to communicate that others have learned of over many decades and become involved in trying to make a profit off the technology. How do you think the internet came into being originally, AT&T, IBM or Yahoo created it in a lab?

This might be of help to some operating on history according to "documentaries", and extrapolating who has a right to what and who should control/not control, what.

Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anybody that thinks the gov't is only looking out for the little guy with net neutrality is simply naive. Bills are being passed at such a dizzying pace here in the US, and no one really even knows for sure what's in them. The sweeping financial bill that just passed is an evolving document that can be changed or modified at any time, with virtually no oversight. Unfortunately, from what I'm seeing, if the gov't wants net neutrality, they will pass it. IMO this notice of inquiry is nothing but a ruse designed to convince the ignorant and uninformed that they have a voice and benevolent big brother cares. China has net neutrality, (I'm sure the people there are told that the rules regarding the internet are in place to help the little guy). Funny thing...... I don't think I've seen any CR4 posts coming from mainland China. Maybe the information available on CR4 is a national security risk, who would know.

What are you talking about?

China has Net Neutrality? you must be in a different universe than the rest of us live in. Controlling the sources of information as the Chinese do is the opposite....

Once again

I'm reading paranoia

so please by all means throw up your hands

& shout about how evil government is with out so much as disturbing an electron [writing an email]

I think I'm seriously missing something about this debate. What law prevents the corporations from charging more or less for better service?

Who pays for access to the web in China? How much do individual Chinese pay, as compared to individuals of other nations?

Regardless of the technology, my own little fear is that the little guys will not be able to compete as if the big guys will be able to buy up all the good stuff, and squelch competition through control of the good stuff put out of reach for the common man?

I put a question mark there to indicate I wonder if I have framed in my mind the issues correctly.

Regardless of whether or not a goal is achievable I think it is a good thing to have a policy position that represents an ideal. In the case of communications, and information distribution technologies what we do want out of it is the content.

It would follow then that Google in China is worth less than Google in the US if the government diminishes the content, regardless of the technologies.

Corporations selling TV shows and news programs subsidized by advertising will excersize censoring powers by not supporting programs or personalities that may negatively affect the bottom lines for the corporation.

Harvey Pekar died this week, as reported in The Week (my typical Sunday morning silent read). The guy was a comic book writer of stories of ennui in a grand world out of reach for the wage slave. He is reported to have been banned for a decade from appearances on David Letterman's show, for criticizing General Electric, which owned David Letterman at the time.

What is implied is that the Corporation will excersize the same censoring power as any government if it thinks it can get away with it.

On one hand every government wants its corporations to make a lot of money so they can pay taxes to that government. On the other hand the "Government, of the people, for the people, and by the people." has a responsibility to defend the people either physically, or from injustice.

Whom do these changes benefit really?

P.S. I do not work for The Week magazine. The prompt was a "Sneak Peak", and not much a fully realized piece. Possibly I will achieve a policy position when I know more fully the characters involved, and can ascertain better likely motivations.

This discussion has essentially involved into the question of, "Who do you trust most (or, distrust least)- a faceless corporation with a well-identified motivations, or a government hiding there true agenda behind the illusion that they "know best" for what is good for the populace?" It should be obvious that I personally am more trusting of the marketplace- mostly because, while both are motivated by the goal to separate me from my wealth, at least the faceless corporation is less likely to do this at the point of a gun...

If one looks at a list of the largest corporations that existed 100 years ago, one will see that very few of those corporations still exist, and those that do exist as only shadows of themselves. The most of the major corporations of today did not exist 100 years ago, or were magnitudes smaller than currently (in fact, many of the industries in which major corporations are involved today did not exist 100 years ago). On the other hand, Empires tend to last 500 years on average. Ergo, the potential damage caused by governments is 5 times more damaging than what one can expect from the most voracious faceless corporation...

Long as we can vote with our dollars against or for any particular corporation basically empowered by laws we accept, then it is no wonder the corporation will change its name, whereas the nation won't as often.

The legacy of Roman Civil Law and the general civilized benefits to common people of many aspects of the Roman Empire, along with the fact that so many laws that facilitate simple business imply that Rome lives, same as some corporations just under another name.

I do agree with Garthh that the status of the modern corporation in US law is odd. I am left with no more inclination to trust the corporation, than I am the government, especially when both reach a certain size.

For the common man it is both the Mega Corporation, and the Mega Government that overtake the individuals ability to influence events. The corporations used to offer dial up that was cheaper. Round where I live I can't even buy that anymore.

And what's up with my TV? They just all of them broke the TVs so you have to buy something else to make it work if it's not hooked up to a cable.

Least back in the day they were forced to make color signals work on B&W TVs! I imagine the Chinese made a lot of money making digital signal converter boxes for US TVs that were broken by the FCC, and Corporations. How come my coupon for a digital converter box expired?

What would Huey Long do? What position would he take? Who is Standard Oil now really? To be right I suppose I will have to channel Ben Franklin to come up with a proper policy.

What like General Electric, Ford Motors, DeBeers, Bank America, Wells Fargo Bank, etc..

100 years is 1910. there are a lot of extremely large companies that old.

never let mere facts get in the way of a good rant

I think it was an observation

comparing the life span of corporations to Governments

Direct comparisons are difficult

Wells Fargo it could be argued had greater importance as a shipping company

Corporations have only one priority, to make money & can change everything else about their organization to that end.

I have not done a proper study of wage slavery. For some reason obscurities are raised up. Just because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible. The Founding Fathers equated freedom with the fortunes needed to pay for it. No poor person was expected to be free.

I must have missed something. The currently proposed "Net Neutrality" legislation in congress has NOTHING to do with the evil corporations you keep talking about. It s all about the left (democrats) controlling the available information flow because they have been unable to compete in an open and free market place. It is also about giving the current regime power to turn off the internet when ever they don't want something discussed and they can invent some kind of "emergency".

The model that existed before was that ALL the media outlets were controlled by people who were friendly to the lefts version of the news and information. Now they have lst control and want to put the genie back in the bottle.

What are you talking about?

are both of the major parties democrats now

The Patriot Act which is probably the biggest erosion of our freedoms in recent history, originated from a republican administration.

do you have any examples of the huge conspiracy you are claiming?

Vote for the 3rd party of your choice, we need a real choice

There is no difference between the parties in power, they represent monied special interests

All the partisan bickering is a diversionary tactic to keep the special interest money flowing

there is a media bias

$

I'm only paranoid until I'm right!

Actually you could still be paranoid even if you are correct. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

We do have visitors from China

check out the last few posts on this thread

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/23955/Casutic-Soda-Production-Unit

Spammers, but they are still here

He's posting out of Cairo, Egypt.

Dcad's been around forever, but isn't a chinese native

http://cr4.globalspec.com/member?u=9035

cnpower had a run in with moderation

it is an interesting question

Should there be an FCC?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/57861/FCC-public-safety-at-odds-over-broadband-plan

I think we could take this on the road

is shortwave AM?

seems like it could be digitized & multiplexed

I'm assuming that part of the spectrum is unregulated...Over here

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/13364/Can-Broadband-Go-Everywhere

an expert is saying you only need 56k of bandwidth for voice, of course I'm not sure if it's practical to use shortwave for data transmission for EMT's

I think the real issue is for emergency responders to use a consistant system of formats to expedite communication in case of a large scale emergency. so in this case it is a failure of long range planning by government, which has led to the current mess

many of the ambulance companies have been privatized, I wonder if there have been meaningful comparisons?

Several bands of the radio spectrum have been reserved for shortwave radio for many years- most popular has always been reserved for amateurs, mostly HF frequencies, because of the long distances achievable. It was radio amateurs that first developed hobby computers, and this is where packet switching originated. Morse code was a traditional requirement, although I think that has been relaxed somewhat in recent years. Morse code can get through most noisy channels that high speed digital or voice can not cope with. As a historical note- back in the late '60's early '70's, we used to make telephone calls over ham nets from Viet Nam to the US- on a regular basis. Make contact with a ham operator, he would place a call for you. That was before the days of fiber optics, and we were just beginning to enjoy satellite communications across the oceans...

Ham radio operators have been first responders for many, many years, with no government interference, and they have been traditionally the first to be back on the air after a disaster (natural or man made). I have the impression that the hobby is going by the wayside of late, but I may be wrong about that. Back in the early days, a ham would build his own radio- nowadays, a typical ham rig can set you back a pretty penny, which keeps the young folks out of the hobby...

I don't think that calling ham operators 1st responders is accurate

1st communicators possibly..

this doesn't solve the problem of the different fire departments [as an example] being able to contact each other.

once again someone has to set standards in the absence of the parties involved being able to act in a cooperative responsible way, causes the feds to have to fill the void.