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

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

Net-neutrality complaints pile up (via wan k choi)

Amen.

Competition is very important in a free market system. But when companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other who want to keep regulators from regulating those companies keeping them from becoming gatekeepers of the internet whether it be mobile or cable, then I have to say let there be regulations. Comcast is already a large company in the area where I live. I don’t have the option of choosing another service provider since there is either … Read More

via wan k choi

Do you want to pay more for internet? (via yourkeyed)

I have been appalled at the FCC’s decision making on the matter of net neutrality. Essentially they have abandoned it. The way is open for a corporate division of the internet. It should not be long before web sites will have to pay money for fast service while those unable to pay will sink into obscurity and then disappear. Consumers will (as always) bear the costs of these changes. Your use of the internet will become something like the cable industry with their multiple packages of different channel combinations. You will pay more for certain kinds of services, in particular, a fast internet connection.

The fight over net neutrality continues. Some sites like yourkeyed are still slugging. I like this web site’s spirit and appreciate its call to action.

I hope you hear that call and want to take part.

James Pilant

Do you want to pay more for internet? [Alright folks, I’ve been mentally hoarding my entries all month, I was going to talk about KSW programming this season, Vancouver, underground networks, gender politics, more things about desire and drive and human existence, yada yada yada., all those juicy things… but it all might be futile when no one will be able to afford the internet:] Do you want to PAY MORE for Internet?  Do you want the telecommunication companies, that already rip yo … Read More

via yourkeyed

“Comcast Owns the Internet” (via Chasing Fat Tails)

At the moment, a great deal of weeping over the defeat of net neutrality is justified. Unfortunately the war for the internet can be lost on more than one front at a time. So, “Chasing Fat Tails” explains.

James Pilant

h/t ars technica Net neutrality has long been the goal of people who care about keeping the Internet free from corporate influence.  The Internet has tremendous potential, but it can only be realized if all users have access to fast speeds that deliver all content at the same rate.  Otherwise Internet Service Providers will be able to privilege some content and users over others, the Internet will balkanize, and the tremendous benefits of a wired … Read More

via Chasing Fat Tails

Internet Nirvana! Wow, Let’s All Go There!

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell let loose his thoughts on net neutrality.

Mr. Powell’s statements quoted from the article

“The Silicon Valley netroot community, a very powerful community, a very important constituency to this administration, is strongly, almost religiously committed to this issue in a very coordinated way and that provides a lot of power and impetus to keep this issue moving and to push the more extreme versions of net neutrality,” Powell said. He later joked the Internet was “nirvana.”

Mr. Powell is a member of the Chicago School.

When he was appointed to the FCC in the 1990’s, he is notorious for his response to a question about the “digital divide.”

“I think there is a Mercedes divide. I would like to have one, but I can’t afford one.”

In other words, internet access is a luxury that you pay for, not a right you need to function effectively as a citizen, a student or a worker.

He was for internet neutrality when it served his purposes. But now he has discovered the nearly infinite amount of money, can be made from scrapping it, he wants it gone.

Could he have some interest in the demist of the net neutrality? Well, he is on the board of Cisco. The company could make enormous sums from the end of net neutrality.

It does seem that Cisco is, well, a little ruthless in its competitive techniques.

Now, about that “nirvana” thing. The Chicago School is passionate about turning every conceivable resource into a private purchasable good. That includes water!

You see, in his mind, if you can divide it up and make money with it, that’s the logical and intelligent thing to do. If you want to maintain equal access you’re equivalent to a religious loon seeking “nirvana.”

Equal access is democratic and people centered. There is no such thing in his world. It’s like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as far as he is concerned.

And if you don’t see it his way, you’re just too stupid to grasp reality.

Now, the reality in his world is this, everything from politics to health care to love follows certain economic rules. These rules are dictated by nature. There is no dispute possible with their logic or power. The most effective way for a society to function is my maximizing choice, and if that choice is determined best by concentrations of economic power, than so be it.

See, the strange world we inhabit is not that world and therefore we are the mental peons he has so sadly to deal with day by day.

I feel sorry for him.

James Pilant