Tag: Net Neutrality

How To Use Research To Change Policy!

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I ran across this on the internet. In Australia they do what’s called jump racing. It has been controversial for many years. The public opposes it by high majorities but after the last series of scandals, the racing industry made cosmetic changes and in that manner common to all industrial operations all over the world announced that everything was fixed.

Well, they didn’t fix it. So, Animals Australia created this report.

WARNING – Graphic Images!

This is devastating. It’s powerful. It’s incredible. This is how the internet, advocacy, policy making, journalism, intelligence and solid hard work come together to change the way things work.

Before the internet is divied up into corporate pie, there is still time for this kind of activism, telling truth to power.

James Pilant

Net Netrality Endangered By The Mushy Middle!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Privatization

Americans are conditioned by their upbringing to compromise, to share, and to make deals. This makes it easier to get along with people and facilitates the development of relationships. But anyone who has eaten an entire bag of M&M’s knows that there can be too much of a good thing.

Now, there are people in this society, some of them famous, who say over and over again, that what we ought to do, is get the two sides together and compromise.

Net neutrality is the current target of these people. Now, here are our choices, we can allow corporate ownership of the internet or we can maintain it as a public property, so to speak, allowing all equal access. I have to tell you, I don’t see a lot of middle ground. They say if the internet goes to corporate ownership, we will have the right to complain. Well, I have the right to complain about lots of stuff, but the people who are concerned with my complaints are not many. More to the point, throw my complaint up against the power and influence of a giant multi national corporation and that phrase about snowballs and the nether regions leaps to mind.

It’s not hard for me to figure that this web site with no advertisement and no income production is not going to be a priority for a corporate controlled internet. I will wind up with long, long waits for those wishing to see my site and for many there will be no wait at all because they will never be able to see my site. My voice will disappear. That gives me a stake in the outcome and it doesn’t make me friendly to a compromise that really allows no other option but surrender to private ownership of the internet.

Sometimes, you can’t compromise. Sometimes, you can’t give int.

This is one of those times.

James Pilant

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

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, Government Failure, Privatization1 Comment

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

No Telecommunications Company Would Deny Another Telecommunications Company The Use Of Its Lines?

On By southwerkIn business ethics6 Comments

Telstra Corporation is an Australian Telecom. It is paying a fine of 18.5 million dollars for denying interconnection between its facilities and those of other companies. Telstra admitted the breach of its legal obligations. The Telecommunications Act, an Australian law designed to prevent just such violations, was the law broken in this case.

Listen to this blogger explain how Telstra caps You Tube at a certain level of band width. He also explains how he is trapped into Telstra’s service and can’t escape.

Guess what? Companies not only want to censor what you can see or slow down things they don’t like, they also want to put the screws to their competitors.

You would think listening to the debate in the United States, that this is all about whether there is enough band width or if we are going to let the engine of “free market” capitalism make this all so cheap we can pay our internet bills with pocket change. This case might give you a different perspective. It would appear given the opportunity that companies would discriminate against each other. Do I have to tell you what that means for your internet service? Sometimes it would be fast, sometimes it would be unaccountably slow and other times, you wouldn’t see anything at all. Is the phrase, internet service provider, an oxymoron?

The way I see it you could make a lot more money denying service. You’d blame bandwidth problems, over regulation, and anybody else that the uninformed might believe responsible.

Ethical? Lord, no!

What do you think this is, some grade school playground? This is the world of American (and Australian) business.

Religious scruples? Golden rule? That shalt not steal? Thou shalt not bear false witness? etc? Not a chance. Religion does not figure into this kind of thinking.

How about philosophy? Kant and the Categorical Imperative? You know, you must do right under every circumstance? I guess we aren’t doing that. What about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism? Are these business practices producing the best results regardless of their initial rightness? Well, if you only consider your profit, yes. But ole John Stuart probably wouldn’t agree with you.

Corporate Social Responsibility? Caste the peasants some crumbs? Well maybe, some in the company may be church goers, you know, a place to make business connections, and they might throw something extra in the offering plate.

You might say, “James, you are just too cynical and you have unrealistic expectations, after all the business world has been freed from old philosophies, over restrictive religions, and public expectations. We live in a new era of one rule, if it doesn’t make money it is wrong, if it does make money it is right. See how simple it is, James? Get on the wagon! You know if you gave up all this moral crap, and wrote the right kind of stuff there could be a future for you. No more teaching college students, no more tapping out your pitiful thoughts at night. Talk to the right people. Play the right games. There’s money to be had. There is nothing in the world that makes a businessman feel better than a little godlike praise. After all, don’t they deserve it? These individuals drive the economy. They make the world a better place. After all, wasn’t the United States created to enable business to make money more freely? Forget about all that liberty crap. You have to make the sale. You have to get some stupid schmuck to get out there with a gun and make the world safe for profit. Relax, James, you need some therapy. Anger and outrage can get you down. You could develop heart problems or at the very least hypertension. Relax, slow down. You know, there are some web sites where they show examples of business behaving well. Write about them! You’ll feel all better!”

No, I won’t.

James Pilant

Andrew Day McLelland Adds His Thoughts On Net Neutrality

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Government Failure

My blog posts also appear on my Facebook. One of my friends made some interesting comments and I want to share them with you.

As I understand it the U.S. Military built the main cable grid of the internet in the 60’s or 70’s(my history is maybe a bit hazy here) and out of all the things the government could socialize or keep socialized it seems the information super-highway of the internet would be high on their list of priorities(if protecting those less fortunate was one of ’em) and absolutely within their jurisdiction. It seems obvious to me that the dissemination of information has become a threat to the oligarchy and now they’ll use proxy companies to absolutely fuck the lower-classes into absolute uneducated ignorance. Then when the obvious pitfalls of privatized internet (organized as such) manifest they’ll say “See! This is what happens with capitalism!” Fascism is wily two-headed cobra, I hope I live to see it bombed and sacked back into the stone age.

Thanks, Andrew!
jp

A Wrap Up Of Today’s Google-Verizon Deal News

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics

Google and Verizon issue net neutrality proposal.

That’s the news today. After denying there was going to be a deal, Google and Verizon made one. Goodness, you might think corporations could lie with a straight face.

How bad is the “proposal?”

Very bad. Very, very bad. Essentially, if you are a “carrier” and I mean a giant corporate one, you’re going to make a bundle of money. I mean you’re going to have to go to a hardware store and buy snow shovels just to get the small denominations out of the way. (Maybe you’ll burn them for heat?)

If on the other hand you are a consumer, you are going to have a different deal. Now probably at this very moment you are expecting some satirical jab at trying to encompass the amount of money you are going to have to spend, right? Wrong. You and I already know what’s going to happen. A tiered market like they want to establish is just like your cable service. That’s right, you know that cheap service you get in your house, the one that requires you to pay for extra hookups and offers you hundreds of channels most of which no sane human being could subject himself to without a frontal lobotomy, that one.  The cable service which finds new and more interesting ways to charge you for services that used to be free and raise the charges on the ones you get now. That’s the one!

I bet you feel good right now. You look at your monthly hook up for internet and see a bill of what is probably in the neighborhood of fifty dollars but in a few years you could be offered a cornucopia of services (that you used to get for free) running in the hundreds of dollars. But get a load of this, with cable you order stuff you want, with the internet you might have to pay to get sites unblocked. Won’t that be neat? I don’t know what it might be aside from political content, art, films, foreigners (especially news services like Al Jazeera), and a bunch of stuff.

But they’d never censor the internet, right? In 2002, Google censored sites critical of Scientology. Oceana, a non profit advertised against the big cruise lines dumping of sewage, so in February, 2003, Google pulled their ads. I could go on (and on and on). There are a lot of examples of internet censorship, stuff most people would be surprised anybody would want to take off but they do and they have.

Google was once in favor of net neutrality. Apparently, earlier this year they were in favor of neutrality. Guess a dollar sign punched them in the head.

Is Google’s upcoming new service challenge to Facebook part of what’s going on? I’m a little curious about this. If Google is challenging Facebook’s dominance, there is nothing like a little additional purchased web priority, is there?

Google’s public policy blog (where you can go to complain and I recommend you do!) has the details on the result of their secret negotiations with Verizon.

James Pilant

P.S.   A little pep talk.

Well, here we are looking at a mass of money, organization and greed. They intend to take and take and take. Well, you want to give them a fight or what? You want to crawl or beg? You want to hand them your money, one dime at a time until there is nothing left?

Don’t be afraid of these people. They have rationalized away human values for a philosophy of greed.  Human beings astonish and surprise them. We speak a language of morality and honor. They simply do not understand. If it isn’t money or you can’t swap it for money, they don’t believe it’s there. When we talk of duty, they laugh. When we speak of sacrifice, they say, “Yes, you must, ” and give up nothing themselves.

These pawns, these caricatures of living things are passing phenomenon like pharisees and know nothings, royalists and brownshirts. This is their time but it won’t always be there time. They will slink off to the Cayman Islands where they can polish their gold in peace, while we human beings put our country back together and build a place where duty, honor and brotherhood are not jokes.

(Now watch a little film and relax, have a laugh. You may enjoy this. It’s a comedic take on inspirational movies speeches.)

What Is Net Neutrality?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Teaching

I found some videos explaining the subject.

A more comic book take on the same subject.

This is (adult content) The Daily Show’s take on net neutrality in 2006. (You have to click on the link because the videos won’t come in directly. Sorry!)

Here is The Daily Show’s take on the subject on October 26, 2009.

This is the best one. It’s a clear explanation. Watch this one.

I hope this helps. Sometimes video is just more effective than print.

James Pilant

And remember this.

Timeline – Google/Verizon Divide Internet

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Government Failure2 Comments

Google's Customers
October 21st, 2009 Google and Verizon issue joint statement in which they say this – For starters we both think it’s essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform — where people can access any content (so long as it’s legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

January 14th, 2010 Google calls for open internet.

June 22nd, 2010       FCC begins back room negotiations with internet carriers.

August 4th, 2010 New York Times reports Google and Verizon near secret deal to undermine net neutrality.

August 5th, 2010 FCC abandons talks on net neutrality.

August 5th, 2010
Verizon issues following statement – The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect. Translation – we’re not making a deal.

August 5th, 2010 Google denies deal to end net neutrality.

August 9th, 2010 Verizon and Google announce a “proposal.” This is apparently strikingly different from a deal, because a deal would imply profits of billions of dollars. You see, a proposal only “implies” profits of billions of dollars. Got it?

What are the results of this deal? Let me quote Craig Aaron The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into “two pipes” — one of which would be reserved for “managed services,” a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

What do you think?

James Pilant

Facebook Discussion On “Internet Rip Off”

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Teaching

When I make a blog entry on this wordpress account, I have set it to immediately post on my Facebook account. The discussion there was lively and informative. So, I am going to repost it here for you to read!

(You will note that my presence in the discussion was tiny. I was playing Dungeons and Dragons from that afternoon until two in the morning. Yes, I am 54 years old and still play D&D – sue me.)

Bryan Aguiar How is the interent a public good? I run a server on the internet. It cost me money to buy it, me money to buy software that runs the computer, and me money to buy the router that connects it to the interent. How is freedom of speech even remotely affected by this? You can still stand on a street corner and shout out your message or pay to print it up on flyers, billboards, newspapers, etc. Where does it say anyone has a right to free interent access? Newspapers costs money, magazines cost money so why shouldn’t the internet?
Yesterday at 9:48am

Gary Bender The internet is considered a public good because it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. By using the internet, one person does not deplete the internet so that others can’t use it. This isn’t perfectly true, for if enough people or consuming the resources of the internet, the extent with which everyone can use the internet is decreased. However, those resources are only limited by the efforts of monopolistic owners created by government in the grant of ownership to the ISPs.

Whether the internet is non-excludable is arguable. Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy. The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion. There are certain special interests who see the internet as a personal cash cow and who would like to exclude some in order to drive demand by limiting supply. This is the reason that the ISPs have hired so many former members of Congress to lobby against net neutrality.

The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech. I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates without being gouged simply because I don’t generate as much profit for the ISPs as Bill does. I have the same right to drive I-520 to 1 Microsoft Way as Bill. Why should I not have the same right to use the Information Superhighway as Bill?
Yesterday at 10:30am

A.G. If you use other people/companies servers, then you will pay for the convenience. OR you could pay for your own server like Bryan does, and browse the internet as you see fit. The internet is a product just like any other.

How is this any different than posting a message on your local newspaper? If your local paper, being a private company, doesn’t like your message than they don’t have to post it. If they choose to post it, then you will pay more for a half page ad (if that’s what you want) than you will for a quarter page ad. If you don’t want to pay for your newspaper ad, then you should own the newspaper.
Yesterday at 10:46am

Bryan Aguiar The internet is very excludable just like cable TV; therefore, it is not a public good. “The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion” is strictly an opinion. In the Dharavi slum of India, they export goods around the world worth 500 million per year. They have one toilet per 1,440 residents, barely have electricity, let alone internet.
“I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates ” You do, just pay for it like Bill Gates does. He doesn’t get it for free and neither should you. Before the internet were you saying you should get a free newspaper while Bill Gates should have to pay for it? Information is still available for free in public libraries. “Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy.” Yet we have very few computer labs and computer classrooms at NWACC. Yet thousands and thousands of workers work evryday day without using the internet. I went to taco bell for lunch yesterday and they made my lunch without having to use the interent. “The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech”. No, that is the issue. People are trying to make it a free speech issue so they can get something for nothing. The government provides public goods with tax money. Private goods and saome quasi-public goods (cable TV and the Internet) are paid for by the user.
Yesterday at 11:00am

Gary Bender Actually, the ISPs are trying to exclude people, not based on the fee, but on the ISPs choice. They want to decide who should use the internet. “Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally – without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users.” Up until now, the users of the internet decide whose ventures succeed and whose ventures fail. The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps. My internet provider, Cox Communications, already has tiered service. But anyone willing to pay the monthly fee can get any tier he or she desires. That is about to come to an end.
Yesterday

Bryan Aguiar ‎“The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps.” I agree that is wrong, wrong, wrong, and they should be stopped from doing that.
Yesterday at 11:48am

Gary Bender James did have a good point about economics which I think deserves an addendum. You might remember when the ISPs laid the groundwork for the internet – the fiber that makes the internet possible. Certain companies were given the contracts in exchange for promises. Those promises have not been met. Moore’s law is in effect with the internet. Excess capacity and breakthroughs such as multiplexing are allowing for a doubling in throughput every 9 months. Hence, the cost to transmit a bit decreases by half every 9 months. Has your ISP cut your rates or doubled your speed? I saw only a tiny increase over the past three years. Moreover, the government, in its foolishness, allowed for virtual monopolies. Oh, Cox will tell you that there is competition. That’s like saying that cars have competition. You can walk. The pols, by allowing the ISPs to get away with what is actually a breach of contract, have created the illusion, Americans being good capitalists, that this is about economic philosophy. It’s not. We are being gouged. While this is not the same issue as net neutrality, it is related and helps to muddle the issue. I think that $45 plus/mo. is too much for the piddling bandwidth and intermittent service that I get, but if Americans are willing to get cheated, there is not much I can do about it. Anyway, these are important topics and I’m glad to see that people are paying attention.
Yesterday at 12:06pm

James Pilant Gary, will you give me permission to put your comments up as a blog post? jp
Yesterday at 3:46pm

Bryan Aguiar Millions of people around the world survive every day without cars and internet. If $45 per month is too much, don’t pay it. And when you and others stop paying it, the price will come down. Problem is too many people think it is worth it, accept the crappy service, and are willing to pay that price or more for it. But as you said Americans are willing to get cheated. By the way cox sucks which is why I am no longer their customer.
Yesterday at 4:31pm

Gary Bender It’s not that I can’t afford $45. Nor can’t I live without the internet. I did so for almost half a century. It’s the fact that if the government hadn’t created these pseudo-monopolies, competition would drive prices down. Cox doesn’t care if I or fifty people like me quit. They will still have their monopoly and a hundred thousand customers in NWA who are too busy working to make that money to think about why they need so much money. Compared to the price of their four kids, boat, and SUVs, internet service is nothing so long as the credit card still works.

I know someone with three kids, a new house, and a new SUV worth as much as I make each year. Yet she is getting government aid. Perhaps if she were to give up some of her unnecessary goods and get off the government dole, I would consider boycotting Cox.

I checked with AT&T. No go. Not that I will ever go back to those thieves, but I checked into it anyway. I don’t know what alternative I have. I won’t go back to dial-up. I really have no choice so long as I’m an educator. I need access to email. I could move to the Midwest and go back to farming, I suppose.

James, you have my permission.

Bryan Aguiar Agreed. Competition would drive the prices down and the government created the monopolies. Fifty people, no cox could care less. 500,000 maybe.
Yesterday at 6:19pm

James Pilant I want to post the whole exchange on my blog! Any objections? jp
11 hours ago

Bryan Aguiar Fine with me
11 hours ago

Gary Bender No objections.
about an hour ago

James Pilant Thanks! I put it up. jp
2 seconds ago

John Boozman Responds To My Concerns Over Net Neutrality

On By southwerkIn business ethics

This is the text.

Dear Mr. Pilant,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for “network neutrality”. It is always good to hear from you.

“Network neutrality” means that the owners of the networks that create and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. Proponents of increased regulations argue that more specific regulatory guidelines may be necessary to protect the marketplace from potential abuses. Opponents, however, insist that existing laws and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policies are adequate to deal with anticompetitive behavior and that more regulations would have negative effects on the Internet’s future development and expansion.

In the current Congress, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced a piece of legislation, H.R. 3458 that would implement the principle of “network neutrality.” The “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” was introduced on July 31, 2009 and is currently under review by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I agree with you that it is imperative that consumers continue to be able to freely access content on the Internet, regardless of their server provider. However, I have concerns that H.R. 3458 would increase the demand for bandwidth while reducing the supply and, as a result, the Internet would have significantly more congestion. Congress has a duty to see that our laws are fair, not only to the companies involved, but also to citizens across the nation that use technology every day. Please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as we continue to debate telecommunications issues.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue.  Please be sure to visit our website at www.boozman.house.gov.  I look forward to your continued correspondence.

Sincerely,

John Boozman
Member of Congress

This is John Boozman’s ad for his Senate campaign. I do not favor his candidacy but he responded politely and intelligently to my inquiry. This kind of conduct is important in a democracy, so I include his ad.