Net Neutrality alert: Verizon to throttle data speeds for heaviest users (via Between The Lines)

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

Is net neutrality important to you personally? How much data speed do you use? If you are like me and my family, you can only suspect that you might be a heavy user. That’s not good predictive power. If this policy is applied to you, it is probably going to be a surprise when your data speed is too slow for Netflix.

They are looking for their Internet Service.

Read the opening of the post –

The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start powering up those devices next week.

In a nutshell, if you’re a heavy user – and you really have no way of knowing if that’s you or not – then Verizon Wireless “may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand.”

I don’t think we should let private industry decide these policies. The FCC regulated television and radio for decades bringing order out of chaos. Why shouldn’t we have standard policies across the nation? We are at the mercy of a handful of suppliers due to consolidation allowed by the very same government that people believe shouldn’t be regulating this at all. If we received our Internet services whether wired or wireless from hundreds of sources, all this would have been solved by competition. But a limited number of suppliers have no reason to cut prices to compete when they simply own the lines alone.

More from the web site –

That’s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don’t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?

I think so too. Why should I be charged for something I can’t measure? And what can I do to fix it if I need that bandwidth? I teach online. This is not an academic exercise. This is my work, and I’m not the only one that uses their home computer for something besides World of Warcraft.

In a monopolistic system of suppliers, I have no say at all. At least with the FCC, I’ve got a chip on the table.

James Pilant

P.S. The web site, Between the Lines, was my source and I would like you to visit if this subject interesting.

The Skuggi Report: Net Neutrality Made Simple (via Skuggi_Net)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

This author has done a great job of breaking down a difficult subject into a straightforward narrative.

He wrote this little masterpiece of summary and I provide it to you.

Please visit his web site and thank him for his effort.

James Pilant

Net Neutrality is seen in two views of recent the first being a savior of the internet and the other it’s doom and to be honest depending on its implication it can be both.   The theory behind Net Neutrality is that it will keep the internet unrestricted, you pay for X level of service and you get that service with no services being blocked.   If one person on one ISP (Comcast, Adelphia, Verizon etc.) can get access to a type of content at the sp … Read More

via Skuggi_Net

Andrew Comments On My Post: “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)”

On By southwerkIn ethics

Andrew has some comment concerning my blog post: “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)”

Here are Andrew’s thoughts –

I disagree with Mr. Harris. Science was designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, science is meant to describe how things are or how they appear to be. Not how things ought to be.

The scientific method could be used to examine how and why different cultures end up with their specific philosophical values systems. It is not equipped, however, to determine which system is “better” and which ought to be followed.

Sam Harris and the other founders of the New Atheist Movement (NAM) have been trying, for the past few years, to make science into more than what it is. They’ve put it up on a pedestal and seem to be almost worshiping the idea of science as this perfect process for the attainment of knowledge and reason. They’ve run into a few roadblocks, however, when trying to reconcile the notion of morality and “what we OUGHT to do” with the scientific method that they worship. The funny part is, by doing this they fall into the very same philosophical traps that they accuse the followers of religious philosophies and doctrines of doing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist as well (not as militant as the NAM though), and I am very familiar with a few areas of science (mainly physics and mechanics) so I know how good of a tool science can be at helping us further our understanding of the universe we live in. Having said that, however, let me emphasis that it does have its limits.

A good example of this is in the topic of nuclear weapons. Science helped us understand how to build the atom bomb. The ethics behind building and using such a weapon, however, is a completely different ball game. As such, we can see that there is more to being human than what science can help us see.

Whether or not science has moral answers I will leave to my readers’ discretion. I am still struggling with the history and basic tenets of moral philosophy. Isn’t John Wayne supposed to have said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I try to not in over may head although I’m sure I do at times.

James Pilant

Espresso, WiFi, & Confidentiality with a Twist of Lemon (via Bow Tie Law’s Blog)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Does an attorney violate client confidentiality by using public broadband? It appears so. There are clear implications for any profession in which confidentiality is a responsibility. Is this the first shot in a dispute about using public Internet access for professionals or all of us?

Maybe we should all be more aware of the risks to our own data?

Read this fascinating article on using the web and an attorney’s fiduciary duty.

James Pilant

Espresso, WiFi, & Confidentiality with a Twist of Lemon Many attorneys, as with a large contingent of the general public, do not possess much, if any, technological savvy. Although the Committee does not believe that attorneys must develop a mastery of the security features and deficiencies of each technology available, the duties of confidentiality and competence that attorneys owe to their clients do require a basic understanding of the electronic protections afforded by the technology they use in t … Read More

via Bow Tie Law’s Blog

Another New Theme!

On By southwerkIn Uncategorized1 Comment
Wordpress Theme, Enterprise

One of my readers very kindly pointed out to me that the new theme was nice but the font was difficult to read. I looked at it and decided that she was right. So, I have a new theme with a larger font. It’s easier to read and while it is not quite as elegant as the old one, readability is more important. If you can’t read it, pretty don’t count.

James Pilant

Andrew Comments On “Law Prohibiting Price Gouging In Oklahoma (via 40/29 tv.com)”

On By southwerkIn business ethics

On my regular commentators, Andrew, would like to add his thought to my previous post, “Law Prohibiting Price Gouging In Oklahoma (via 40/29 tv.com).”

I like the spirit of this law. It prevents unethical businesses from profiting from the misfortune of others.

Here’s a hypothetical situation. If Company “A” and Company “B” are both hardware stores in the same town when an emergency hits. Company “A” is owned by an unethical man who ratchets up his prices to make a buck off of the emergency. Company “B” is owned by an ethical man who keeps his prices steady (perhaps out of a sense of duty to his community, who knows). Now say I am a resident of this town. In the aftermath of this emergency, if I hear that Company B’s prices are lower than Company A’s, then I will prefer to do business with Company B. Thus, ideally, ethics will win out over greed.

This hypothetical only applies to situations where healthy competition is established in each market. If you live in a small town where there is only one hardware store or one grocery store, then the residents are at the mercy of the store owner.

So it seems that this law will definitely help out the small town folks, and I see nothing wrong with it at all.

Andrew is good commentator and I appreciate his thoughts. I have urged him to write his own blog or to write full articles for mine but he prefers his current role.

If you write some interesting content, I am likely to post it. I get to choose when and my editorial decisions may not make much sense to you but I will try to do my best to be fair.

James Pilant

Inside the Beltway… (via Scenarios and Strategy)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Click on the link below to see the cartoon. It’s a good one. The battle over net neutrality illustrated. This is delicious. And it is accurate.

Fighting the net neutrality battle for a small blog seems almost hopeless but there a lot of us. We’re disorganized and highly independent. It doesn’t make for good group cohesion. But we have our anger and each of us has our own niche on the web. Maybe we can make some difference in this battle.

James Pilant

Inside the Beltway... From Christopher Wright, a comic illustrating a theme that we’ve visited before (e.g., here and here)  While he focuses on Net Neutrality, one should feel free to substitute the Corporatist concern of one’s choice– energy policy, agricultural policy, financial industry policy, pharmaceuticals, intellectual property, etc., etc.– the mechanism works in just the same way… Corporations are people, the Supreme Court averred as it proscribed any im … Read More

via Scenarios and Strategy

Wichita police testing out 6 body-mounted cameras (via The Wichita Eagle)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

From the article by Stan Finger –

A half-dozen Wichita police officers are testing a new body camera system that records everything the officers see and do outside their vehicles.

The field tests began two weeks ago and will continue for another two weeks, Capt. Jeff Easter said Wednesday.

“Anything that they get out of the vehicle on, they’ll record,” Easter said of the officers. “Anything is evidence. You never know what’s going to happen in front of you when you get out on the scene.”

Early results are promising.

“It’s a very good system,” Easter said. “The video quality is amazing. It’s much better than any other camera system we’ve looked at in the past.”

The system is manufactured by Taser, which is letting Wichita police try it out. The head-mounted system resembles a Bluetooth and can also be attached to an officer’s hat or eyewear.

I’m a little surprised that the police are adopting these without any fuss. I have read and directly heard about the police disabling cameras. But apparently it has become a useful tool for the officer.

I’m a little more interested in what this means for the rest of us. I recognize that the technology is available to be purchased now but it is not the same. These things kick on every time an officer exits the car. They keep all of what is seen for a year. This is no short time surveillance camera in a tie. While we are not police officers whose department is willing to spend the $5,000 a year necessary, we will eventually be the beneficiaries of the technology. Soon at a reasonable price you will be able to make a record of everything you see 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It might be useful taking college classes or at a family reunion or in large scale use changing the social fabric of the nation.

Will all Americans adapt their behavior to an utterly continuous recording of themselves by countless others? What will be the long term social effects?

In terms of business ethics, what we have here is the private becoming public. Discussions, comments and negotiations will all be easily recorded in the most informal of circumstances with the ability to keep records for years. Is there a disclosure requirement? Is there going to be an unspoken agreement not to use these in negotiation? Can they be used in court? This kind of evidence could come back to bite you as long as it exists and eventually those records will exist for the course of our lives or longer.

Will states or the federal government regulate their use? That is an important question. There is some regulation of recording phone calls. The grounds for this is that there is no consent from one of the parties. That would be a similar justification for laws on continuous viewing by personal cameras.

These things worry me. We seem as a society to do things without discussion and debate. When we do it turns every single time into a debate over personal freedom versus government regulation whether or not these are significant factors in the issue. Every subject can be classified that way but that doesn’t mean it fits into that box. Surveillance is more of an issue of what can new technology do and “what the effects are.” What are the advantages of this technology? Does it conflict with our customs and morality? What effects will it have in different areas of endeavor; medical operations, trial, sports, sex, and countless others. Once we think about the effects then we can start putting it into legal or regulatory boxes. But in current discussion the boxes come first and we never do the often subtle thinking that allows humanity to make reasonable and intelligent decisions.

James Pilant

P.S.

I went to a “gadget site” on the web. I couldn’t get a price but the system ad read this way. I think you’re supposed to feel like Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible move.

This High Quality Body Camera set is ready for Covert Operations. This complete set is all you need. At a much better and higher resolution then our lower priced Body Cam, you get what you pay for. This is the best there is. Camera is powered by the DVR unit itself so there is no stupid 9 volt batery to weight you down.

A New Theme

On By southwerkIn Uncategorized3 Comments
Wordpress Theme

I’ve changed themes on my blog. I sometimes posted more than three times a day (one day I did nine). My previous theme was a three column and it was difficult to look at more than three articles I began to get concerned that my kind readers would only see the three posted when they visited. So, I went to a single vertical column with a list of recent posts off to the right. The theme also places my blogroll right at the top. I like that.

If you like the change or don’t the change, please let me know.

I changed it to make your blogging experience more user friendly.

James Pilant

Response to Rep. Marsha Blackburn: A True Conservative Tech Policy (via The Prelator)

On By southwerkIn Capitalism2 Comments

This article is concerned with net neutrality. A good part of the article focuses on this issue. But the article takes on some other critical issues. One is Congress’ bizarre lengthening of the copyright privilege to seventy years plus the life of the author. It’s tragic in literature but in the tech world it ties up technology is a disastrous fashion. He also discusses new laws under consideration that would make suppliers of net access vulnerable to legal action over the content of their various customers. This would provoke massive censorship of the web not because there is illegality but to avoid the slightest possibility of illegality.

It’s a good article and his conclusions are very close to my own. I wish the author well.

James Pilant

On January 18, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn gave a speech purporting to give a conservative view of technology policy. As a strong conservative myself, I was deeply saddened to read this speech, which not only displays a deep lack of understanding about important policy issues facing the tech world, but a misunderstanding of the true tenants of conservatism in favor of the very corporate cronyism which Republicans are all too often accused of. … Read More

via The Prelator