So, Google supports net neutrality, right? After all, they're a member of the pro-NN Open Internet Coalition.
That's why I was confused today when I stumbled upon the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free market think-tank that opposes net neutrality, and discovered that Google was listed as one of their supporters.
Is this a bureaucratic mix-up, or is Google being disingenuous? Hm.
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts
17 January 2008
06 November 2007
Bubbles (RCAH 292)
Now Serving Sad Face
The immediate concern I have with John Eger's theory of creativity and economy is its unwarranted optimism. The idea that humanity is naturally progressing to a new era of prosperity and creativity, and that the United States' massive job losses due to outsourcing can be saved by Silicon Valley, seems to be evoking the blind and historically embarrassing predictions of the enlightenment. It was once popular to assert that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to a utopian world, where automation and mass production would provide enough for everyone. We've certainly seen, particularly after World War Two, that there is no magic pill for the timeless ills of society (especially poverty), with which we can passively sit back and watch things fix themselves. The best and most significant contribution to any solution is active, human effort to pursue not only prosperity, but also justice.
Admittedly, this isn't a fair evaluation of Eger's entire piece. He does argue that cities who want to compete in the new internet-economy will have to invest in educating its citizens about the internet, as well as stimulate creativity and civic pride. I couldn't agree with him more, and the abundance of data he provides makes for strong evidence. But he fails to address the very real roadblocks that exist, other than the obvious commonly-entrenched opinion that the arts have no value. Nowhere in his article does he consider the raging debate over who will provide internet service in the United States, and how that service will be provided. Many cities that have attempted to provide free municipal wireless internet have met stiff and pervasive resistance from telecomm giants, who obviously have an interest in keeping the internet private. One such case is the city of Philadelphia, and the result was that "the governor of Pennsylvania last week signed into law a controversial bill that includes, among myriad items, a provision giving incumbent carriers the ability to prevent cities from creating and charging for municipal Wi-Fi networks." The bill was strongly advocated-for by Verizon, who agreed to allow the city of Philadelphia's municipal Wi-Fi to move forward in exchange. The result was that the rest of the state was doomed to remain under the heel of privately-controlled internet.
And the term "privately-controlled internet" takes on another meaning altogether when we consider the fading of net neutrality (which I'm not going to waste space explaining; if you don't know about it yet, that really is your problem and you should go here immediately). With the FTC more or less controlled by telecomm giants ("I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," says FTC Chair Deborah Platt Majoras, utilizing the terminology of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon), net neutrality is not being enforced. ISPs are already moving on that information, with Comcast blocking bittorrent traffic (much of which is wholly legal, such as an employer distributing information to employees, or software developers distributing patches to their customers).
None of this is mentioned by John Eger; his article was so dearth of anything regarding net neutrality that it almost seems I've gone off-course in evaluating it. But I haven't, because if telecomm giants can control what consumers access on the internet, there can be none of Eger's creativity. All the excitement over user-created content, the sort of "internet populism" that fuels optimistic arguments such as Eger's, fails to recognize that without net neutrality, the internet will slowly grow more like television, with content regulated by the gate-keepers at large media corporations. And to the extent that the internet is influenced by the United States, this will have repercussions around the globe.
The immediate concern I have with John Eger's theory of creativity and economy is its unwarranted optimism. The idea that humanity is naturally progressing to a new era of prosperity and creativity, and that the United States' massive job losses due to outsourcing can be saved by Silicon Valley, seems to be evoking the blind and historically embarrassing predictions of the enlightenment. It was once popular to assert that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to a utopian world, where automation and mass production would provide enough for everyone. We've certainly seen, particularly after World War Two, that there is no magic pill for the timeless ills of society (especially poverty), with which we can passively sit back and watch things fix themselves. The best and most significant contribution to any solution is active, human effort to pursue not only prosperity, but also justice.
Admittedly, this isn't a fair evaluation of Eger's entire piece. He does argue that cities who want to compete in the new internet-economy will have to invest in educating its citizens about the internet, as well as stimulate creativity and civic pride. I couldn't agree with him more, and the abundance of data he provides makes for strong evidence. But he fails to address the very real roadblocks that exist, other than the obvious commonly-entrenched opinion that the arts have no value. Nowhere in his article does he consider the raging debate over who will provide internet service in the United States, and how that service will be provided. Many cities that have attempted to provide free municipal wireless internet have met stiff and pervasive resistance from telecomm giants, who obviously have an interest in keeping the internet private. One such case is the city of Philadelphia, and the result was that "the governor of Pennsylvania last week signed into law a controversial bill that includes, among myriad items, a provision giving incumbent carriers the ability to prevent cities from creating and charging for municipal Wi-Fi networks." The bill was strongly advocated-for by Verizon, who agreed to allow the city of Philadelphia's municipal Wi-Fi to move forward in exchange. The result was that the rest of the state was doomed to remain under the heel of privately-controlled internet.
And the term "privately-controlled internet" takes on another meaning altogether when we consider the fading of net neutrality (which I'm not going to waste space explaining; if you don't know about it yet, that really is your problem and you should go here immediately). With the FTC more or less controlled by telecomm giants ("I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," says FTC Chair Deborah Platt Majoras, utilizing the terminology of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon), net neutrality is not being enforced. ISPs are already moving on that information, with Comcast blocking bittorrent traffic (much of which is wholly legal, such as an employer distributing information to employees, or software developers distributing patches to their customers).
None of this is mentioned by John Eger; his article was so dearth of anything regarding net neutrality that it almost seems I've gone off-course in evaluating it. But I haven't, because if telecomm giants can control what consumers access on the internet, there can be none of Eger's creativity. All the excitement over user-created content, the sort of "internet populism" that fuels optimistic arguments such as Eger's, fails to recognize that without net neutrality, the internet will slowly grow more like television, with content regulated by the gate-keepers at large media corporations. And to the extent that the internet is influenced by the United States, this will have repercussions around the globe.
23 October 2007
Security Level Code Spoiler
It continues to begin.
Comcast shows no restraint. There really are such things as good companies, I think, and perhaps I'd even say there are a lot of ethically decent large companies out there. Most of them seem to have set some limits for themselves.
Comcast does not. Time and time again, they make it obvious: contract clauses attempting to remove the customer's right to sue after thirty days, nonsense with the Big Ten network (because Big Ten didn't fall in line with their monopoly), inconsistent and monopolistically half-assed service, and of course the height of their crimes, which is the continued destruction of net neutrality.
Ethical citizens in this country should do everything in their power to avoid using Comcast for their internet service, and should likewise do everything in their power to take legal action against Comcast's monopolistic regime.
DUMBLEDORE IS GAY, undoubtedly the next "Snape Kills Dumbledore!" internet-fad.
And will the book-burners not have a field day as well? If this were some kind of eleventh-hour attempt to keep public attention as the books come to a close, it wouldn't be a bad one.
As it happens, it looks like Rowling is going to move beyond fantasy, having announced that she plans to continue writing. I admit I find it admirable that she's continuing to do what she wants, knowing full well that the public wants more Harry Potter, and that she could continue making lots of money down the sickening road of selling her soul to fanatical fandom. Perhaps good karma will give her non-fantasy books a strong showing as well? Perhaps she's a Great Writer? We do know one thing for certain: Dumbledore likes men! Ahahahahahaha!
Comcast shows no restraint. There really are such things as good companies, I think, and perhaps I'd even say there are a lot of ethically decent large companies out there. Most of them seem to have set some limits for themselves.
Comcast does not. Time and time again, they make it obvious: contract clauses attempting to remove the customer's right to sue after thirty days, nonsense with the Big Ten network (because Big Ten didn't fall in line with their monopoly), inconsistent and monopolistically half-assed service, and of course the height of their crimes, which is the continued destruction of net neutrality.
Ethical citizens in this country should do everything in their power to avoid using Comcast for their internet service, and should likewise do everything in their power to take legal action against Comcast's monopolistic regime.
DUMBLEDORE IS GAY, undoubtedly the next "Snape Kills Dumbledore!" internet-fad.
And will the book-burners not have a field day as well? If this were some kind of eleventh-hour attempt to keep public attention as the books come to a close, it wouldn't be a bad one.
As it happens, it looks like Rowling is going to move beyond fantasy, having announced that she plans to continue writing. I admit I find it admirable that she's continuing to do what she wants, knowing full well that the public wants more Harry Potter, and that she could continue making lots of money down the sickening road of selling her soul to fanatical fandom. Perhaps good karma will give her non-fantasy books a strong showing as well? Perhaps she's a Great Writer? We do know one thing for certain: Dumbledore likes men! Ahahahahahaha!
09 September 2007
All Your Internet Are Belong to Us
Did you know? Every time Alberto Gonzalez masturbates, God kills a civil liberty.
19 August 2007
You Will Take Their Lies to Your Grave
Now Serving: The World According to People That Want Your Money
Sometimes I think that most of humanity is soulless.
Dugg: "Fox News Caught Editing Wikipedia [Changes Included]"
"Virgil Griffith, a good friend and fellow hacker, reminds us today that anonymity on the internet does not really exist. Finding out that someone from the Fox News network changed this..."
It's not just Fox, though that of course attracts the most attention on Digg. Apparently people using computers from the CIA, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Vatican, Diebold (the voting machine company), and the Canadian government have dishonestly tampered with articles.
As great as Virgil Griffiths' work has been in outing these intellectual perverts, he can only slow the inevitable. Powerful people who want to disingenuously influence public opinion will find a way to do it anonymously. They threaten Wikipedia, and all that it means to the millions of people who use it. And just as Wikipedia is not alone in spreading information, aiding communication, and allowing expression, so is the rest of the internet threatened by the ulterior motives of unscrupulous people. It's not just protecting net neutrality that we have to worry about.
read more | digg story
Sometimes I think that most of humanity is soulless.
Dugg: "Fox News Caught Editing Wikipedia [Changes Included]"
"Virgil Griffith, a good friend and fellow hacker, reminds us today that anonymity on the internet does not really exist. Finding out that someone from the Fox News network changed this..."
It's not just Fox, though that of course attracts the most attention on Digg. Apparently people using computers from the CIA, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Vatican, Diebold (the voting machine company), and the Canadian government have dishonestly tampered with articles.
As great as Virgil Griffiths' work has been in outing these intellectual perverts, he can only slow the inevitable. Powerful people who want to disingenuously influence public opinion will find a way to do it anonymously. They threaten Wikipedia, and all that it means to the millions of people who use it. And just as Wikipedia is not alone in spreading information, aiding communication, and allowing expression, so is the rest of the internet threatened by the ulterior motives of unscrupulous people. It's not just protecting net neutrality that we have to worry about.
read more | digg story
11 July 2007
Seven Weeks of Baseball and Lying Bastards
Now Serving Trader Joe's Jade Oolong Tea
"There's a book out, it's called 'Seven Weeks to Emotional Healing,' and in it he talks about how especially in winter - I've tried this and it really works - it helps to just bring in flowers." Seven Four-Hour Work-Weeks to Emotional Outsourcing, that's my new self-help book.
Dane Cook is still funny, but today, he lost his sanctity. Not only did I see him on an All-Star game commercial plugging TBS/FOX's coverage of the playoffs, he wasn't even attempting to make jokes. No longer is he exempt from the judgement of young adult males, as are Tenacious D, Bob Barker, William Shatner, 300, etc. (For a while at least, you can inquire further at MLB's website.)
"Net competition advocates continuing a free market Internet and opposes a 'socialized-Internet.' Net neutrality advocates activist regulation of broadband prices, terms, and conditions." That's from Net Competition, a website that opposes net neutrality (on the grounds that it's socialist and it would put activists in charge of their internets). This is their list of members.
"There's a book out, it's called 'Seven Weeks to Emotional Healing,' and in it he talks about how especially in winter - I've tried this and it really works - it helps to just bring in flowers." Seven Four-Hour Work-Weeks to Emotional Outsourcing, that's my new self-help book.
Dane Cook is still funny, but today, he lost his sanctity. Not only did I see him on an All-Star game commercial plugging TBS/FOX's coverage of the playoffs, he wasn't even attempting to make jokes. No longer is he exempt from the judgement of young adult males, as are Tenacious D, Bob Barker, William Shatner, 300, etc. (For a while at least, you can inquire further at MLB's website.)
"Net competition advocates continuing a free market Internet and opposes a 'socialized-Internet.' Net neutrality advocates activist regulation of broadband prices, terms, and conditions." That's from Net Competition, a website that opposes net neutrality (on the grounds that it's socialist and it would put activists in charge of their internets). This is their list of members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
