On the importance of Net Neutrality by Steve Wozniak

[ratcheer]

I wish I could express my views so clearly. This pretty much sums up how I feel about Net Neutrality:

»http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

Tim

[jagmanss]

Link not working... Page Not Found

[lxskllr]

Link not working... Page Not Found

Try this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

[ratcheer]

Sorry about the link, I have no idea what happened. lxsklir's link is correct.

I have corrected the OP

Tim

[lxskllr]

Good article, and I agree completely.

[sgreger1]

Try this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

Wow, that was an amazingly well written article. Literally I felt like I was getting a talk from my father, as both he and the writer speak almost exactly the same. Very impressed. And very true...



This paragraph is what stood out to me, and really hit home:

When young, I remember clearly how my father told me why our country was so great, mainly based on the constitution and Bill of Rights. Over my lifetime, I've seen those rights disregarded at every step. Loopholes abound. It's sad. For example, my (Eisenhower Republican) father explained the sanctity of your home and how it could not easily be entered. It was your own private abode. And you had a right to listen to any radio signals that came because the air was free and if it came into your home you had a right to listen to it. That principle went away with a ban on radios that could tune in cell phone frequencies in the days of analog cell phones.

I almost shed a tear reading that. It's not often we are able to sit down and think about how truly ridiculous and out of control things have become. They own the invisible waves in the air, but who gave them the deed? Nature holds the patent on radiowaves, not Comcast.

And it's all around you. We pay farmers NOT to grow food! I have to buy lettuce from Guatamala because just 20 miles away our farms grow nothing but corn for sugary american products because of the subsidies. And right now as we speak, governments around the world are getting together and colluding to figure out how they can pull the same ****ing scam, but this time charge you for the air your breath. The whole carbon trading nonesense is the same BS as the radiowaves, they are charging you for inhaling oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide... they have figured out a scheme to make profitable the most rudamentary processes of the body which none of us could survive without.


This is your brave new world. Orwell and Huxley were both wrong, it's going to be much worse than they thought. One thought that an overabundance of technology would lead to our enslavement, the other thought it would be absolute totalitarian control that did us in, but at the end of the day the reality was much worse. John Gault the capitalist ended up owning the air you breath. And Johnny WANTS his damn fee every time you fart into it (or else).

[AtreyuKun]

EMP
Just like in Escape from LA. Sure I'd miss Super Mario and my movie collection, but I'd survive.

[lxskllr]

Yet somehow "Network Neutrality" means that the government _should_ get involved in the network management activities of private companies?

Yes, when there's a defacto monopoly. Free market economics only works when there's a free market. Internet access has gotten to the point where it's as necessary as water, energy, and food. With a monopoly of unnecessary items, market pressure can change terms of business. No one /needs/ an iPhone. If Apple charged $800 for the phone, and $200 for monthly service, market pressure can push the prices where they need to be. People just won't buy iPhones. If you don't like the ISP's terms, you go without internet, and internet is an integral part of modern society. If their pricing terms aren't acceptable, you deal with it, or miss out. In the few areas that do have choice, collusion is a real problem. Choice doesn't mean any thing when the only 2 players are price fixing service.

[ratcheer]

I am glad my thread is generating a little discussion. I also posted it on a web site that is mainly for broadband users (http://www.dslreports.com) and, the last time I looked, there was not a single comment.

Tim

[sgreger1]

Its old school robber barren monopoly guy lookin, tophat wearin capitalist bs. But it could only exist when the Gov has their backs. In a true free market, cable would be part of utilities like water, maybe an extra $20 a month for the full package. Instead its almost $90 to watch basic cable here.



I think this is one of the few times the gov needs to intervene. Tiered pricing and throttled service sucks. In a free market, i would be able to get terabyte upload speeds by now. It's twenty-eleven and i still pay for "data" AND text messaging. Up is down and black is white.

[lxskllr]

BS.

Let's test this theory of yours. I'll bet you die if you don't have water, energy or food. If anything, I'll bet you are more healthy, physically and mentally, after a few months without Internet access.

So, what exactly do you think makes Internet access "necessary"? That you can shop without leaving your house? That you can communicate with your friends without (gasp) writing a letter or phoning them? That you can read the news without reading a paper or watching TV or listening to the radio? That you can research things without going to a library? That you can screech nonsense onto the Internet instead of being that weird paranoid mumbling guy with the sign at the corner?

I think you are confusing "necessary" with "convenient" or "fun".

It's getting to the point that some companies ONLY take job applications online. Governmental information is more readily available online, sometimes it's virtually the only way it's available. I'm more equipped to live without modern conveniences(grid power, grocery store food, pre made clothes...) than most, but that doesn't mean I don't think people are generally better with them. Internet is just as necessary as grid power, and telephone. Interestingly enough, those are both heavily regulated industries.

The only groups in favor of tiered internet are the internet providers. Curious how that works....

[raptor]

So you're against government-mandated net neutrality because the internet is not "necessary", danielan?

Cheap unlimited bandwidth ISP service only works when there is not government interference in network management activities.

Nope, not the way that telecom companies are reforming their previous AT&T-style monopolies. Price competition won't be guaranteed when (eventually) there's a handful of companies doing all the cellphones and internet in the US.

[sgreger1]

All we know is that they used to have a monopoly and we broke it up. Now they have a defacto-monopoly again. If left alone, they will obviously just form a monopoly, this is why I think we need government intervention on this. I agree with lx, we should be regulating this industry better, and net neutrality sets the rules real clear; no ****ing tiered pricing.

[truthwolf1]

I kinda like the move towards a citywide wifi at a reasonable rate. As long as all content is open of course.

[ratcheer]

I kinda like the move towards a citywide wifi at a reasonable rate. As long as all content is open of course.

Yes. And one of Wozniak's points is that the big monopoly communications companies will, and are, trying to quash these local efforts so they can continue to milk the people for profits.

Tim