how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amungus
Re: Gimmie A Break
said by amungus  :"This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced." Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist. ..and I have to disagree with you. When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism. We have a capitalistic system here where equality in financial wealth or benefit doesn't exist. We still have the right to earn and have while others -may- not...
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
In a government run system, sure! In a privately run network, no. The very fact of trying to have government intervene in a privately run network in the name of "fairness" is in fact climbing on socialism.
Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property. If there is such a need for non-smokers to have a smoke free environment, the capitalist society would take advantage of the supply and demand and rake in a fortune. Since the cry from non-smokers can't get their own places, government takes the route to ban smoking which in my opinion intrudes on property rights of land and business owners.
So.. force policy on to business? No. Does it happen? Yes... is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested.
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. And this I would COMPLETELY agree with you if the network being operated was run by the government where the constitution would protect the free speech.. To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do. However, businesses, last time I checked, are still allowed to sell to the highest bidder. We may not like it, but it's not illegal.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. The only reason I want to respond to this comment is because you used the word 'fair'. This is commonly used as a reason for why many times. As much as I agree it's not "fair" we have NOTHING in the constitution that grants us the rights to all be fair among others. Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. To want to accept the government's version of fair, I hate to tell you, IS socialism. This is allowing the government to spread their idea of fairness... which also is discrimination in reverse. Those that have worked hard and built their empires or businesses forced to be on the same level as a small guy in his one bedroom apartment is in itself discrimination to the big guy. Or, someone like me who has put his time in, struggled, starved, worked hard to get to a mid level,.. say I have the money to buy more than, say, you.. a very little guy. I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)
When you create this false idea of fair, you also do what people here on BBR are against - they want people to innovate. Many people that are where they are (say the google boys) they worked hard, and build themselves to where they are. Just as you may want to do.. you may want to build to be something big. Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?
Naa... fair isn't the law. It's a dream.
Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind. What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. What they are talking about are large sites that throw a gob of bandwidth rich data. Ultimately, if the nets start selling premium services, this is a battle to the millionaires anyway.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| The problem is, the government created the mess in the first place, allowing private companies to build networks on public ROWs. You can't have a free market when one competitor owns the marketplace, unless that competitor is forced to share the marketplace distribution that is un-reproducible. If every competitor were allowed to build their own network, then we could have a "free" market system in communications. Of course we also wouldn't be able to see the sky anymore through the tangle of network wires.
So there are two solutions. Either network owners aren't allowed to compete with content providers. Or network owners are required to give fair access to all service providers, especially those they compete with. Currently this is enforced through public interest, and the threat of government intervention; public interest in communications is pretty fickle though, and won't maintain the current status quo.
Imagine if one retail company bought all the commercial space (including internet access) in your state. Then decided to only sell their products. "Sorry we don't make Cheerios or light bulbs, you won't be able to buy those from now on." Of course a black market would be created selling Cheerios and light bulbs at huge mark-ups. A black market in communication networks is just not possible. | |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
Wow. Ok fiberguy, settle down. I'm not a turbo pro net neutrality advocate, I'm just a regular joe who's claiming to be no expert here...... just voicing some thoughts...
"When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism."
Ok, point taken. Perhaps I'm taking a more "academic" or less strict viewpoint of the whole thing. I'm no socialist either, but your remarks in a comment further down that "most people here" are, is just dumb. Go watch some foxnews' or something, maybe read some fairy tales, come back when you're happier...
"The internet" is not simply "private" networks. Granted, it has become largely just that, and granted, lots of traffic does go through 'ma-bell'... but the whole of the internet is not simply private, commercial interests. Access to it, and services rendered of course are of a commercial (capitalist) nature. I'm not against that at all. Sure, most communications upon the internet are facilitated by commercial contracts. When, why, and how exactly does that describe, or allude to describing limitations on one's freedom to utilize their contracted, agreed upon connection?
Let me say it one more time and HOPE that this fact soaks in a little bit -
There is still more non-commercial material out there (on the internet) than commercial.......
"Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. "
oohkay... point taken. Perhaps it would not be detrimental to me, and it would be for others. Why should it have to be argued in that direction though?
Perhaps it could be more detrimental to the freedom to thrive in such a capitalistic society where there would be no chance of a smaller business being able to compete on any playing field (unless they could already afford to buy into it).
Still doesn't mean that if you have more speed, more connections, more servers, that I shouldn't be able to utilize the same exact resources available to me, in whatever fashion I so choose. I'm not clear on where this line in the sand is, so to speak. I don't care if someone else has an entire server farm and a billion lines of fiber all crossing over to everyone else's connections. If I have a server, a dedicated connection, and that connection is then partnered with other peering agreements, then my data should travel to its destination in as timely (best effort) a manner as yours - minus the volume of the contents (payload) and the number of concurrent destinations. Sure, if a million people hit a shared server, it'll choke. I understand that.
"I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)"
No offense taken. I don't want a handout just to be on your level either.
"Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?"
That doesn't seem like the issue to me here. I think it's exactly the reverse as I tried explaining in the bolded text above. Perhaps you are correct, and it's the other way around, either way, it's a matter of perspective here; and, I don't think anyone deserves to be hampered by gov't meddling in the affairs of one's business, be that yours, mine, or some guy across the world with something to say.
"What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. "
It's this part that I'm concerned about. How do we know that with certainty? How do we know that by the time "premium" whatever comes along, that these "millionaires" haven't AOL'd the entire internet to the point where nobody even has a clue anymore? Sure, there might still be a little guy out there, but how is he heard? If a tree falls on the side of a lonely dirt road, does anybody hear it? Nope, too busy checking their bread and circuses.
"Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property."
I tend to side on the rights of private businesses as well
...but they usually don't pay for gobs of connectivity until two requirements are met: 1) they can afford it. 2) they need to afford it to stay in business...
...Also, yes, I concur with your analogy about smoking and the conclusion, overall:
"is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested."
And, finally, the last thing that I'll quote from your post:
"To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do."
Exactly why communication agreements should remain neutral.. You sum it up perfectly  | |
|
