Spork Boards

Loonie Legislators and that Wacky Webernet Thingo

John Willoughby's Avatar Picture John Willoughby – January 01, 2008 03:13AM Reply Quote
The topic that just keeps on giving.

tliet – July 23, 2010 07:24AM Reply Quote
They are joking down under, right? Tell me they are Tony. Have you got an inverse April 1 too?

John Willoughby – July 23, 2010 12:10PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Australia's going to be locked down more than China by the time this is done. Let's hope that they don't try for parity with North Korea.

ARL (Moderator) – July 23, 2010 08:14PM Reply Quote
You beat me to it, tliet.

Yup, censor and snoop. Not only are we not adults who should be able to decide what we do or don't want to see on the net, we are all naughty children who must be monitored...

At some point my online identity will be replaced by someone who says "Greetings non-Australian citizens - our government and our enhanced internet service are THE BEST!"

For the meanwhile, it's been nice knowing you all...

ARL (Moderator) – August 16, 2010 01:37AM Reply Quote

YES!!!



I never thought I'd say thank god for the greens and the conservatives in the same sentence, but there you go...

ddt – August 16, 2010 10:29AM Reply Quote
That's politics for you.

On the other hand... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/tea-partiers-say-net-neutrality-hurts-freedom.php?ref=fpa -- that's not politics, not policy, it's... well, I'm not really sure what it is.

Honest question: why does the far right wing(nut) side always with corporations, despite the "What's Wrong with Kansas" fact that this can be totally poor for their personal well-being? It can't be that they all think they'll be in that position of wealth/power some day. Is it just knee-jerk reaction to whatever progressives or LIEBERALS want? Seriously -- I'd like to understand.

ddt

John Willoughby – August 16, 2010 12:24PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Republicans side with corps; Obama opposes Republicans and is seen as anti-corp. Wing-nuts oppose Obama on EVERYTHING, so must be pro-corp.

Action; re-action; re-action to re-action.

ddt – August 16, 2010 12:35PM Reply Quote
Maybe you're right, but I'd hoped there was more, like an actual position.

Ladies and gentlemen, your modern Republican party. The party of "we oppose ideas".

ddt

John Willoughby – August 16, 2010 01:13PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
To be fair, I wasn't describing the GOP position as mindless opposition, just the tea-baggers'.

ddt – August 16, 2010 01:50PM Reply Quote
Yes, I got that... but realistically, the GOP is appealing to and incorporating much of all that madness. See Palin's advocacy of them and their positions, McCain's policy stance changes, Michelle Bachman (well, she's nuts ALL ON HER OWN), Cantor, Boner, etc. ...

ddt

John Willoughby – August 16, 2010 02:02PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
The GOP whipped up the frenzy, but I doubt that they can control it now. I'd make a comment about German politics in the early 1930's, but Godwin wouldn't like that.

ddt – August 16, 2010 02:36PM Reply Quote
...just occurred to me how apt by coincidence this thread title is... though I'm thankful they're not actual legislators.

ddt

Mokers (Moderator) – August 17, 2010 05:21PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Net neutrality is great in concept, and I don't think that the internet should be censored1. But I don't really see what the danger of letting businesses do as they please. If businesses make choices that will restrict their users to the point where their service is impacted, users will be able to go elsewhere. If Verizon decides to give Google a preferential deal that it won't give to other customers, other companies will compete for the business of the people that Verizon spurned. The cat is largely out of the bag already. Companies that cannot justify the expense for the quality of their content will go away or be forced to adapt. Information has become freer and cheaper, despite the relative lack of government regulation and the main struggles against consumer choice are almost always government created or rely on government power to enforce. Companies will always chase the dollar and that gives us consumers the power to move companies. Give the government the power to tell corporations what or what not to do and suddenly those choices become political and dependent on whatever (large) company has the best lobbyists. I think any law hoping for keeping internet access unrestricted will eventually be choked of its effectiveness and stuffed full of loopholes that end up making corporations richer and us poorer.

Now you can make the case that a lot of these networks are only thriving because of government subsidies and so should be open to regulation. I would say the better answer is to cut off the subsidies for these companies in the first place.

1 - You'll notice that if a site has been taken off the internet (other than not paying for your bandwidth, etc), it almost always starts with government force. ISPs and hosting providers generally don't give a shit what happens on the internet until somebody slaps them with some legal action.

John Willoughby – August 17, 2010 05:48PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
The problem is that the phone companies don't want to be reduced to "dumb pipes," but are utterly incapable of producing a value-add that anybody would pay for. All of their legitimate concerns could be addressed by tiered pricing based on data usage. Anything else is them trying to extort money from content providers upstream or content consumers downstream. Unfortunately, they are willing to unite with their competitors and lobby the government to tilt the internet so more money slides into their tills.

ddt – August 17, 2010 06:31PM Reply Quote
You'll notice that if a site has been taken off the internet (other than not paying for your bandwidth, etc), it almost always starts with government force. ISPs and hosting providers generally don't give a shit what happens on the internet until somebody slaps them with some legal action.

Outside of China, Turkmenistan, etc., no, not really. Quantitative evidence that this is a real problem in the U.S.? Anything other than, say, when there's a clear violation of law?

users will be able to go elsewhere

Hahahahahahahahaha... oh, it hurts. No, really. It hurts. Here in the fracking SAN FRANCISCO AREA, we are pretty much limited to Comcast or AT&T. And they're both terrible. This is the case in many major markets. Same libertarian fallacy that rationalizes anti-health care policy, anti-union stances, etc.

ddt

ARL (Moderator) – August 17, 2010 07:13PM Reply Quote
ddt,

There's nothing stopping you drawing up your own business plan and approaching a bank for a loan and then rolling out your own network - don't you see that?

If ATT and Comcast want to throttle the speed of some of their competitor's data, or just decide that, as a faceless and unaccountable corporation, they are better equipped to censor the internet than the gubmint, well that's the free market at work...

El Jeffe – August 17, 2010 07:40PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
What do we (the tech community) have in the way of an emergency internet should our current internet be rendered useless by fiat, or catastrophe?
I mean, yeah, the shortwave radio guys will be able to talk, but what is the equivalent pirate internet tech? and why DON'T we have an underground for this sort of stuff if not?

ddt – August 17, 2010 08:08PM Reply Quote
Undernet, sadly, is actually an IRC network.

ddt

John Willoughby – August 17, 2010 11:10PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Make a note of Macedition's IP, so we don't need DNS to get here.

Mokers (Moderator) – August 18, 2010 12:26AM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Quote

Outside of China, Turkmenistan, etc., no, not really. Quantitative evidence that this is a real problem in the U.S.? Anything other than, say, when there's a clear violation of law?

Laws are great until your team is not writing them. Your clear violation of the law is another person's free speech. Right now, it's a clear violation of the law for a man to marry another man, and the only entity taking that power away is the government, so I will say there are lots of cases around this country where government takes away peoples' rights in general. Most of the time the government is shutting people down on the internet because some private company or trade group complained. Your clear violation of the law is also most likely the FCC coming down on people at request of the MPAA or RIAA. Forgive me if I forget to shed a tear for those two pillars of openness.

Quote

Hahahahahahahahaha... oh, it hurts. No, really. It hurts. Here in the fracking SAN FRANCISCO AREA, we are pretty much limited to Comcast or AT&T. And they're both terrible. This is the case in many major markets. Same libertarian fallacy that rationalizes anti-health care policy, anti-union stances, etc.

Government handed them local monopolies. I agree that Comcast and AT&T shouldn't have been handed an monopoly because it creates an added buffer between them and the consumer.

(As an aside, if you hate AT&T and Comcast, try: http://www.unwiredltd.com/consumer.php . They are not cheap, but they are good people. )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2010 12:28AM by Mokers.

ddt – August 18, 2010 11:11AM Reply Quote
so I will say there are lots of cases around this country where government takes away peoples' rights in general

Sorry, not actually an applicable example. So, no cases you've seen.

Plus, the relationship between a user and the ISP is a commercial one, covered by contract law, not civil law. It's not a difference that's considered by most people, but it is a real and simple one, and very important. If violating copyright law is in the contract as ground for terminating service, and you violate copyright law, you have willingly and knowing violated an agreement between business parties that you entered into willingly and with full information (isn't that one of the sacred cows of libertarianism?). You'd need to prove a civil right violation, such as an ISP targeting a protected minority, etc. (And I'm not a lawyer, but I learned all this in one semester of a tangentially related class, so it's not like this is arcane stuff.)

Agreed that the local monopolies exist and weren't a Good Idea. So, you agree that the theoretical "it's a free market and informed consumers will act as the Invisible Hand and correct problems" isn't applicable in the actual world?

And hm... that service does look interesting! You're right, though, it is expensive... and the hills around here make wireless connections really suspect (believe it or not, windy days like we often have seem to affect coverage!).

ddt

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login