For those opposed to net neutrality regulation the ability to block content is the unintended and unspoken consequence.
Those opposed to net neutrality regulation talk in terms of the engineering need to manage the network, which is a legitimate concern. However, they disingenuously avoid discussing that their desire to be free from regulation is NOT really about the engineering but a management issue; the ability of management to control the distribution of content for any reason and for whatever business purpose management decides.
Ah the wonders of NO regulation. The New York Times is reporting that "Josh Silverman, the chief executive of Skype, the voice-over-Internet phone service, could tick off the names of mobile phone operators that block his company’s service." (emphasis added). Obviously this highlights the "dirty" tricks companies will play when granted unlimited freedom. Don't these companies ever learn that if you abuse freedom through "dirty tricks" that you should not deserve freedom. If companies feel that they can lie and cheat with impunity, why shouldn't society seek regulatory relief?
The assertion that regulation has unintended consequences, while true, is such an empty statement. Simple logic dictates that if there are no restraints (regulation) there will be an infinite number of unintended consequences. Freedom to do whatever and whenever. Yes freedom is good, but you must also acknowledge the proverbial "unintended consequences" of that freedom.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality crowd so adamantly fighting it to the point of hysterical claiming that the iPhone will be nuked? Obviously, the anti-net-neutrality crowd has something to hide. Sounds like an unintended consequence for the consumer.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality not offering (promising) to abide by net-neutrality principles? Seems to me, that if you want to avoid regulation, you could offer-up a code-of-conduct. Again, if someone fails to commit to a standard of conduct, would your trust them? Trust me, I have a bridge in New York City that I could sell you really cheap. I will place the title in the mail to you after the check clears! (Sarcasm of course). Seriously, just because I say "trust me" is no reason to trust me. Yet that is exactly the empty promise being made by the anti-net-neutrality crowd.
From my point of view, if the anti-net-neutrality crowd fails to establish a code-of-conduct that I can live with and only offers stonewalling rhetoric, I'll take the unintended consequences of regulation.
I had to restrain myself from responding with "FUD" at the time it was posted on the Technology Liberation Front. Glad to see that someone else picked-up on this travesty. Regrettable this is only one instance of other logically challenged posts.
The problem with so-called copyright "protection" is that it is a moving target. Look at how the law has changed over the years, ever stronger copyright laws are turning ever more citizens into criminals.
As an example of this trend take a look at regional DVD restrictions and copying legally acquired music and copying it from one device to another. Each time there is a technological advancement, the strong copyright crowd claims infringement and tries to criminalize those activities.
When you buy content, you have bought the right to use that content. So I would claim that calls by the strong copyright crowd for so-called "protection" is really a form extortion. They are "stealing" from me by denying me my use of the content that I bought.
@nasch: You miss a critical point. The concern over supposed choice when dealing with a private company is irrelevant. Private companies trade your data as a commodity, as if they own it, and don't even bother to pay you a royalty for its use. There is nothing from stopping AT&T, which you may actually have a "relationship" with from selling your location data to Sell by Night incorporated who you may not ever even heard of. Quit AT&T and move to Verizon, and they do the same. So where is the supposed "choice"?
If everyone in an industry is following the same onerous business practices, "choice" is a farce.
The corporations, especially those involved with media content, are acquiring "police powers" normally reserved for the State. Regrettably, this onerous trend has not yet surfaced as an issue of concern in the public consciousness. Fortunately, there are some, such as TechDirt and the Electronic Frontier Foundation disclosing this trend.
Now that the Supreme Court is allowing corporate contributions, I hope that our elected official will wear corporate sponsorship logos on their clothing.
That's what I am saying, we need to require private industry to abide. Furthermore, it is an absurdity allowing private industry to ignore due process. Again, why the meek acceptance of private industry's oppression, while frothing at the mouth about government oppression?
To a degree, if you are "broadcasting" your location, you have no expectation of privacy. So in that sense no warrant is needed. (Cell phones, when on, are always broadcasting.)
But at a deeper level, I would say "reading" the data would require a warrant. I acknowledge that these are very fine distinctions.
But what I find really troubling, we get all upset and work ourselves up to a frenzied lather when the Government does this. But few raise this concern when private industry does the same.
Private industry is doing this all the time and is seeking ever greater authority to spy on US citizens. Internet "filtering" ring a bell?????? The Anti-Mike even posted that complying with "due process" was an impediment when it comes to piracy.
If we expect the government to acquire warrants to read your content as part of a crime investigation; then private industry must also be required to follow due process.
By logical extension, anyone at anytime should be able to enter your house and search it for "unathorized" content/products.
A while back, I ran across this quote from John Perry Barlow:
"The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."
What is the basis for requiring Person C (the ISP) to automatically intervene to Protect Person A in a dispute between Person A and Person B? In theory, persons A & B should duke it out in Court.
Person C (just because Person A has a lot of lawyers) should not blindly accept that Person A's accusation possess any validity. Anyone can make "false" accusations.
Also as previously noted on other TechDirt comments; in protecting Person A, Person C is forced to assume a great deal of liability and monetary cost. So one would think that Person A should then be required to pay Person C for those costs and to indemnify Person C for any legal repercussions.
I just spent nearly $50 buying Open Office books that are available free as PDF documents. For me, going through a real book adds value since it is easier. In fact, I will probably use both the PDF and hard-copy versions. So even content that is legitimately available free of charge can lead to revenue generating sales.
Absolutely true, "Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It". But it still begs the question of what would happen in the absence of regulation. Rather than lambaste the shortcomings of regulation there should be demands that companies honor network neutrality.
First, if the government made this tax mess, they should provide (free of charge) the computer program for computing your taxes! The way we do our taxes is so technologically obsolete.
Second, the real solution; junk the whole tax code and implement a simple flat tax.
Unfortunately, there are probably so many entities, such as Intuit, who have a vested interest in the complexity of the existing tax code that they would never want to see a simple tax code.
Actually, this is a very good question that few people really consider. Look at the automotive industry, or even look at Sprint. They have been perpetually dying.
We assume that the free-market responds fairly quickly to supply-demand, but the reality is that it does not.
One of my pet concepts on this, consumers to a degree do business on a RANDOM basis. The also purchase things with minimal knowledge and for the sake of convenience.
Considering that this country has 300,000,000+ people, quite a lot of business could do a profitable business base on the random selection of their products even with crappy products and poor customer service.
When I last(years ago)looked at PayPal's Terms-of-Service it became readily apparent that their supposed "guarantee" for buyers was nothing but hot air. PayPal would only refund if they could get the money from the seller, hardly a guarantee that PayPal would actually step-in.
Second, A quick review of various underlying articles did not explicitly disclose why PayPal took the action it did. For example "The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue.". But this "issue" was never explained. So what is (was) the issue??????
Maybe the publishers really lost $100 billion. But then the people who borrowed the free books, being very innovative, added $200 billion dollars to the economy based on what they learned in those books. The free market at work.
Just because one sector of the economy "looses" doesn't mean that our entire economy looses. In fact the economy, overall, is probably stronger because of the free exchange of information.
Many opposed to net-neutrality regulation cite how the infrastructure that provides the internet is "private" property. As such, they assert(our)ownership to the extent of ignoring the users (their) claim to ownership to the information being transported.
On way to look at the our/their issue is that those who provide access to the internet are hired to move the private data of the users. As such, ISP are not really entitled to "regulate" or otherwise "manage" the movement of private data.
By way of analogy, when you go to UPS you are hiring them to deliver your private package to its destination, on-time and in good-shape. By extension, the mere fact that the ISPs own the infrastructure does not entitle them to deprive the users of their property rights concerning the delivery of their packets (packages)..
On the post: YouTube Joins Hulu In Letting Content Holders Block Access For TV-Connected Devices
Net-Neutrality
Those opposed to net neutrality regulation talk in terms of the engineering need to manage the network, which is a legitimate concern. However, they disingenuously avoid discussing that their desire to be free from regulation is NOT really about the engineering but a management issue; the ability of management to control the distribution of content for any reason and for whatever business purpose management decides.
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
Re: Unintended Consequences
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality crowd so adamantly fighting it to the point of hysterical claiming that the iPhone will be nuked? Obviously, the anti-net-neutrality crowd has something to hide. Sounds like an unintended consequence for the consumer.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality not offering (promising) to abide by net-neutrality principles? Seems to me, that if you want to avoid regulation, you could offer-up a code-of-conduct. Again, if someone fails to commit to a standard of conduct, would your trust them? Trust me, I have a bridge in New York City that I could sell you really cheap. I will place the title in the mail to you after the check clears! (Sarcasm of course). Seriously, just because I say "trust me" is no reason to trust me. Yet that is exactly the empty promise being made by the anti-net-neutrality crowd.
From my point of view, if the anti-net-neutrality crowd fails to establish a code-of-conduct that I can live with and only offers stonewalling rhetoric, I'll take the unintended consequences of regulation.
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
FUD and More FUD
On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department
Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
As an example of this trend take a look at regional DVD restrictions and copying legally acquired music and copying it from one device to another. Each time there is a technological advancement, the strong copyright crowd claims infringement and tries to criminalize those activities.
When you buy content, you have bought the right to use that content. So I would claim that calls by the strong copyright crowd for so-called "protection" is really a form extortion. They are "stealing" from me by denying me my use of the content that I bought.
On the post: Should The Feds Need A Warrant To Find Out Where Your Mobile Phone Is?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Conudrum
If everyone in an industry is following the same onerous business practices, "choice" is a farce.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department
A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
Now that the Supreme Court is allowing corporate contributions, I hope that our elected official will wear corporate sponsorship logos on their clothing.
On the post: Should The Feds Need A Warrant To Find Out Where Your Mobile Phone Is?
Re: Re: Interesting Conudrum
On the post: Should The Feds Need A Warrant To Find Out Where Your Mobile Phone Is?
Interesting Conudrum
But at a deeper level, I would say "reading" the data would require a warrant. I acknowledge that these are very fine distinctions.
But what I find really troubling, we get all upset and work ourselves up to a frenzied lather when the Government does this. But few raise this concern when private industry does the same.
Private industry is doing this all the time and is seeking ever greater authority to spy on US citizens. Internet "filtering" ring a bell?????? The Anti-Mike even posted that complying with "due process" was an impediment when it comes to piracy.
If we expect the government to acquire warrants to read your content as part of a crime investigation; then private industry must also be required to follow due process.
On the post: Australian ISP Stops Kicking People Off The Internet Following iiNet Ruling
By Logical Extension
A while back, I ran across this quote from John Perry Barlow:
"The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."
On the post: Australian ISP Stops Kicking People Off The Internet Following iiNet Ruling
Due Process
Person C (just because Person A has a lot of lawyers) should not blindly accept that Person A's accusation possess any validity. Anyone can make "false" accusations.
Also as previously noted on other TechDirt comments; in protecting Person A, Person C is forced to assume a great deal of liability and monetary cost. So one would think that Person A should then be required to pay Person C for those costs and to indemnify Person C for any legal repercussions.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Just bought Some "Free" books
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Begging the Question
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
Flat Tax
Second, the real solution; junk the whole tax code and implement a simple flat tax.
Unfortunately, there are probably so many entities, such as Intuit, who have a vested interest in the complexity of the existing tax code that they would never want to see a simple tax code.
On the post: PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets
When Will a Business Die?
We assume that the free-market responds fairly quickly to supply-demand, but the reality is that it does not.
One of my pet concepts on this, consumers to a degree do business on a RANDOM basis. The also purchase things with minimal knowledge and for the sake of convenience.
Considering that this country has 300,000,000+ people, quite a lot of business could do a profitable business base on the random selection of their products even with crappy products and poor customer service.
On the post: PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets
Re: Re: So Why Did PayPal Freeze WikiLeaks???
On the post: PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets
So Why Did PayPal Freeze WikiLeaks???
Second, A quick review of various underlying articles did not explicitly disclose why PayPal took the action it did. For example "The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue.". But this "issue" was never explained. So what is (was) the issue??????
On the post: Libraries Cost Publishers $100 Billion Per Year! Ban Them!
Another Broken Window Fallacy
Just because one sector of the economy "looses" doesn't mean that our entire economy looses. In fact the economy, overall, is probably stronger because of the free exchange of information.
On the post: It's Not An Open vs. Closed Internet, But Ours vs. Theirs
But they (ISP) are hired to move our content
On way to look at the our/their issue is that those who provide access to the internet are hired to move the private data of the users. As such, ISP are not really entitled to "regulate" or otherwise "manage" the movement of private data.
By way of analogy, when you go to UPS you are hiring them to deliver your private package to its destination, on-time and in good-shape. By extension, the mere fact that the ISPs own the infrastructure does not entitle them to deprive the users of their property rights concerning the delivery of their packets (packages)..
On the post: Obama Administration Considers More Public Access To Publicly Funded Research
How is the Publication of Publicly Funded Research Piracy?
If publishing rates decline, well that is the free-market at work. Too bad.
Next >>