The issue of net neutrality

[Rational Head]

Tania Derveaux the sizzling candidate for Senate in the 2007 Belgian general election, who created the parody attack over the political issue of other political parties “to provide jobs” by advertising, she will provide “blowjobs”(Read more at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Derveaux#Election_controversy)) has again rocked the world by declaring “I will make love with every virgin who defends the Internet.” One may call it madness, I say it’s brilliant.
Her website ““Don’t Stay Virgin (http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main3.php)”says—

“I’m using sex in a positive way to spread awareness. The reason why only virgins can apply is because I don’t want to make this promise to such a large amount of people that I’ll have to turn some down.
Net neutrality is paramount to safeguard free speech and innovation on the Internet. With only one arguably negative side-effect: an unusual amount of today’s Internet users are virgin. That’s a problem I intend to solve. In history, man has always waged war for freedom. Now it’s time to obtain our freedom with love.
Sex is all over the net and yet it’s still a big taboo for many. Using sex to spread awareness will be yet another big step to sexual freedom. This is just another great example of what’s possible thanks to net neutrality.”


Basically, the topic of net neutrality is all rubbish and anti-mind.

Net Neutrality is like price control mechanism. If you invented a new device say iPhone(production cost $100), and govt makes a law that you cannot sell it for more than $120 to people, then technically it sounds good that now you cannot force people to charge more money, but considering the part that you can only create 1000 sets per year, there is high unavailability of the gadget. Yes iPhone is in your reach, the small man, but there is no availability unless you are highly lucky.

On the other hand if you are allowed to charge any amount of money, you will of course put them for auctions, first people who really need it and can pay a lot for it will buy, your phones will be sold for $10,000, and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will buy them, soon with that much windfall profits you will be expanding your production, making 10,000 sets a year thereby bringing down the price to $500 per set, being able to sell it to more and more people. Then to 100,000 sets a year now being sold for only $120 per set.

Therefore price control harms people.

Some bloggers or personal site publishers may find Net-Neutrality in their favour but actually it is not so.
The point is, prices should NOT remain equal, rich guy must be allowed to pay more and get better services.

You being a blogger might sympathize to a Net Neutral stance, but the truth is that having a preferential delivery mechanism benefits everyone. Why do you think your blog(which is a non-profit opinion column) must get same priority as a real time stock quotes to a trader? The ping back time(time it takes for a packet to reach from source to destination) is so inconsistent that you cannot device your technology relying on a consistent ping time.

For example if a doctor in Europe wants to operate on a patient in Africa on a robotic machine, he cannot rely on Internet for the data transmission, because some people in Middle East wanted to read your blog, or watch nude chicks online.
Net Neutrality is not desirable, profit making traffic should always get more priority over non-profit making traffic. And don’t forget that overall bandwidth prices will be cheap.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other big players demand net neutrality. They argues that telecom service providers cannot dictate the phone users whom they can call, similarly, network dictators should not dictate what people should do online. It is true.
The electricity providers can charge the electricity users, but can the electricity providers charge the manufacturers of CD-players? Plug any CD player to electricity irrespective of its brand manufacturer, and it will play. So how can a broadband provider demand google, yahoo, MSN or even a common man’s personal site or blog to pay them?
This is nothing but the job of Google, MSN’s marketing team. When all the big companies support a viewpoint, you gotta get a funny feeling in your gut. Without net neutrality Google and Yahoo’s profits massively come down. There won’t be a single monolithic web service dominating the web, rather a tri-state company might start paying the tri-state ISPs more to have its data delivered to tri-state customers at a faster rate. The big companies will be the biggest losers in such a situations, but overall customers will benefit a lot.

This example is inaccurate, electricity provider charging the CD player owner is not the same as ISPs discriminating against the data. Look at it this way, whose property a website is using? The ISP’s. So the ISP has a complete property right on his bandwidth. The data as far its on the website is owned by the website. As it moves to the ISP’s wires, its owned by the ISP, and once it reaches the user, its owned by the user. Just as you have a right to allocate any amount of RAM on your computer to load any webpage, ISP has a right to allocate any priority on data on its lines, just as website host every right on what data it wants to store on his server.
Telecom companies CAN discriminate, and they DO, discriminate. Anyone who calls internationally knows it. If you buy a cheaper calling card to India from US, you will get poorer quality(they have limited bandwidth, so if they divide it among more people you will get cheap tariff but poor quality, if they divide it among less people you will get dearer tariff, but better quality.

Its your choice how you wanna use it, and in fact its really good for people. For example if I wanna call my dad and talk some serious issue, then use a expensive card(which gives me 10 cents per min), if I wanna talk to my mom while cooking and taking recipes use a cheap card(3 cents per min). That’s the most efficient allocation of my resources.

(original discussion here (http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/net-neutrality-is-net-free.html))

[gagged_Louise]

The World Wide Web has evolved from the start by public funding, by long-term spending and research efforts from, for instance, the US defence, universities and their computer networks (in many countries major universities are wholly or partly funded by the public, not by private enterprise or by churches), state owned phone companies who have evolved into leading ISPs, state-run comp/electronics colleges and so on. Even the web addressing system and the basic network rules and standards running the www are held up by international authorities such as ICANN and CERN and guaranteed by states, not by Microsoft, Vodafone, Yahoo or Verizon. So the structure that keeps the web running and growing would very likely not have happened if it was geared only by private enterprise - I'm talking of the framework, not of individual sites such as Youtube, Google etc..

So the web really should be seen as a public utility, it gives unique chances of creating new links and areas of cooperation between people all over the planet (this site is one example of that). And if it's not a purely private market, there is no reason, economic or moral, why prices should be determined simply by the ISPs and site owners trying to squeeze as much as they can for the traffic and the rest of us weighing in for how much we want to pay.

Now of course some of the major telephone/ISP companies who actually run the physical cable/ routing "freeways" and smaller paths - but not the inside structure of local networks - want to make more mnoney than the relatively slim broadband fees they get today, and one way of doing that is simply to start asking for an "added rent" from the larger websites with heavy traffic to see that they get a faster driving lane on the broadband. And on the other hand, if people would want to access small and obscure websites (often non-proofit ones) they may have to pay extra to their ISP or it will take an eternity to open the site, or maybe not at all. This kind of pay-payola system is 180 degrees against the idea of an open web, and it is not likely to gain acceptance from the billions of ordinary web users and content creators. It would point the way into a web market as stifled as today's Hollywood where everybody's making prequels, bestseller adaptations and simplistic High-concept movies because the franchise is often more important than the actual film.

[Meena]

On the principle basis of Property Rights which are reasonably valid and beneficial, ISP's have total freedom to demand better prices from bigger corporation for their larger websites.
But I believe that it should be left to be decided by Market forces.
In a bargain, the seller and buyer both have equal rights to decide for a mutually beneficial free-trade.

I oppose any law over net-neutrality because any such law is against Individual freedom of a seller and it will ultimately Destroy the freedom of buyer too.

As gagged_louis suggested the common (but false) fear regarding the issue that the small and obscure sites won't get proper usual usage benefits, is just a propaganda of these bigger sites. Its not like ISp will reduce facilities for the common non-beneficial users, it is just that ISPs will try to innovate to give better facilities for the higher or bigger users and hence will demand for higherr price for better facilities.
Yet, no ISp can force any bigger website with large web-content to buy the slot of special facilities. Neither can any website or even public or government force ISP's to not to try for price discriminations for various usages. But it should remain on the basis of free-market system.
Any interference of Government will destroy the net.
SO although I am willing to safeguard the net, but i Strongly oppose the Idea of net-neutrality, and I consider Tania Derveaux just another attention seeking bitch with no objective idea of what she is saying or seeking for. She is trying to reiterate and shout something which is fundamentally against Individual freedom as pro-liberty.
I simply and strongly oppose any idea of bringing any law related to Net Neutrality.

[gagged_Louise]

As gagged_louise suggested the common (but false) fear regarding the issue that the small and obscure sites won't get proper usual usage benefits, is just a propaganda of these bigger sites. Its not like ISp will reduce facilities for the common non-beneficial users, it is just that ISPs will try to innovate to give better facilities for the higher or bigger users and hence will demand for higherr price for better facilities.

I really didn't see much point in discussing this with a fervent Randian, they tend to just say "the entrepreneur is the world saviour and should always have the front seat" but I'll comment a bit on what you wrote:

All sites on the internet use the same internet highways for a large part of the journay of their data, and those highways (T3 cables, large switchboards etc) were often built with public money. It's not as if Yahoo and Youtube are using any special cable networks for themselves when their data reach their end users. However, there's been a steady increase in the demand for bandwidth: people are doing more and more data-intensive things on the web - downloading movies, engaging in interactive graphics-intensive gaming all over the world, podcasting. And more and more people are picking up on the web too. In ten years time there will be more computer devices linked up to the www than the number of humans on the planet. So there will be a steady need for building better and faster "highways" both cable and satellite-borne.

The ISPs will likely not be building those facilities on their own, as a truly free-market operation. Everyone can see today that good telecom networks are essential to growing business, education and so on - simply to a country getting in the forefront. So whatever part the ISP take in this, they will have partners and there will be borrowing of billions of dollars to invest in these new cable highways and networks (oincluding high-speed networks for mobile internet). Big site owners like Yahoo and Goofle/Youtube are aware of this already now of course, but I don't see what reason they should have to ty to protect a million smaller and less finacilly muscled companies and sites by insisting on that all website traffic should be handled on equal terms when it travels the web (this is the core principle of net neutrality, right?)

Why would Yahoo defend that kind of flat principle - defending stuff costs both time and lots of money today, for instance if you have to go to court (which everyone has to, over and over, in innovative technologies) They'd be much better off if they could make (secret?) deals with ISPs and cable providers that they should have the fast lane to themselves in reaching us. The benfiuciaries of this would be the big commercial site networks and the ISPs, because nobody wants an internet access that runs at reduced speed and where you are not able to reach the big and well-known sites.


Besides, many ISP companies today are not really paying in full for their own costs; they are not in the red on a realtime basis. They are presenting slash fares for their customers, especilly new ones - on both ends - and tie them in with subscriptions that mean you have to hang on to the same ISP for a year, or three years but you get the cable modem and th first two months of access for free, etc - the idea is simply to corner a big marjket share by being first and hauling in ciustomers playing "the looney salesman who puts everything on bargain". Perfectly legit but it's not as if they are hauling themselves up by their own bootstraps from a start in Dad's garage financially.

This is how it's worked ever since broadband and cheap mobile phones arrived ten years ago. One can't take for granted that the ISPs are doing big profits today, they have to stick to those low lump fares to keep a high profile in this competitive business - but some of them may change that in the future, and there's no guarantee they will stick to prices that match their "real costs" (it's obviously useless to argue exactly what is the 'real cost' of the internet, it's like trying to determine what a music cd should "really" be priced at to match the work effort and quality put into the recorded music).

So the open nature of the web could really be under a kind of silent fire in not too long and it's useful to be aware of this.

[gagged_Louise]

edit at the beginning of paragraph 5 in my posting above - read: "they /many ISPs/ are not 'in the black' on a realtime basis" (they are not sailing ahead and pulling in surplus). Having a high share value reflects nothing about if your company is actutally making net money, many high-profile internet companies have spent gazillions before they became financially sound - or till they foundered. The same is true in showbiz.

[Meena]

@gagged_louis
Actually, I am not a Randian.
Second thing is, it is not The ISP who are thinking of looting public money.
It is the sites like google, yahoo msn etc which are looting public money.
How?
Have you ever considered public roads? Why are these roads made and how?
In your city, are there public roads or private roads?
I am sure they are public roads although I have seen some private road circles too at bristol and london. Now the public roads are made by public money for public usage.
Do a bicycle user pays same road tax as a car driver? Do a car driver pays same taxes as a private transport tractors/trucks provider? Do the transportation companies which uses those "PUBLIC ROADS" pays more taxes than you (as you uses simple bicycle or cars for your personal usage)?
Yes well, if one uses those public roads for some commercial business like public transportation or goods transportation, then he pays extra toll charges and taxes.
Why those taxes are taken? So that roads may be maintained, the wears and tears may be taken care of. Those maintained roads are used by all of us freely. We actually don't pay for maintaining those roads that much as a commercial transport businessman pays, because government takes higher taxes and charges from him not from us or a walker on the roads.
That is the correct way it should be, we don't use roads for commercial purpose hence we take only social services and pays for it, while a commercial user uses roads for his business, and hence he pays extra on account of his business related to roads, he uses roads more exploitatively than most us, hence he pays more taxes for wears and tears.

Same way, google, yahoo msn etc are commercial sites they are not like my blogs opr your blogs, they makes money from it, it is their business. we don't do business on internet do we?
Do we use internet for commercial purpose on large account? No most of us don't.
So why should we pay for all the usage and wear and tears of internet system?

Why should not they pay higher parft opf it which are making maximum of their business only on account of internet? Why should they keep the so-called public service (internet) exploitatively while all wear and tear should be sahred by us? Do Yahoo and google shares their profits with you?

No they don't than why should you share the momney used in maintaining all these facilities with yahoo and google?

[Meena]

"they /many ISPs/ are not 'in the black' on a realtime basis" (they are not sailing ahead and pulling in surplus). Having a high share value reflects nothing about if your company is actutally making net money, many high-profile internet companies have spent gazillions before they became financially sound - or till they foundered. The same is true in showbiz.

Since you have allready tried to attack me by making unwanted and disgusting remarks and name calling (randian) etc, hence I allow myself to exactly state the idiotic nature of this comment.
Why it is so idiotic?

Lets say a person opens up a mall, he invests allot money for its success, no matters it becomes a successful profitmaking shop or not, will you like to share the ventures loss or investment money to be deposited without actually involving in the profits it will make(if it makes)? Why will you invest your money in somebody else's business when he is NOT at all going to share any buck with you?(you a common man/woman anyone)
Similarly, why will you be ready to share the maintainence and wear and tear charges of all internet when you are not using it for any commercial purpose while some of us are using it as the only source of work and income?

It is not about google or yahoo or msn alone, it is about every website which is actively involved in e-business.

We don't do e-business while chatting and homely usages, and they don't use internet for any homely usages, they use it for their profit and business.

Then why should we the common citizens should pay for the maintainence of their business? They don't share any profits with us.

ISP's are actually talking of us.
They are supporting us, they are saying that the money which they takes from us, is actually should be paid not by us, but the companies and entrepreneurs which are making business over internet.

Fortunately, Rand even though was always supportive to entrpreneurs, but in this case, even she might have supported us, the common citizens who uses internet for our common homely entertaining processes alone and not for some high circle business against the looters of common public which although do business on common publics money but don't share their profits with the innumerous investment share holders. We the internet bill payers invests for the business of these search engines like yahoo google etc at present. ISP's are not saying that make their profits high.

They are saying let us "the common citizens" be free of the investment charges for the business of these multi-billion companies. Let them bear their investing amounts on their own instead of forcing it on us common public.

[Torq]

Quotemany high-profile internet companies have spent gazillions before they became financially sound -

Dang always wondered just how much is a "gazillion" ???

LOL

T

[AdrianaAurora]

Dang always wondered just how much is a "gazillion" ??

T

Good debate, but to answer Torqs question, :idea:

To discover how much it is you first have to break down the word Gazillion.

"illion", come from million, from Latin mille, thousand, plus augmentative suffix -ion or -on (literally big thousand)

Million has 6 zeros
Billion has 9 zeros
Trillion has 12 zeros
Quadrillion has 15 zeros
Quintillion has 18 zeros
Sextillion has 21 zeros
Septillion has 24 zeros
Octillion has 27 zeros
Nonillion has 30 zeros
Decillion has 33 zeros
Undecillion has 36 zeros
Duodecillion has 39 zeros
Tredecillion has 42 zeros
Quattuordecillion has 45 zeros
Quindecillion has 48 zeros
Sexdecillion has 51 zeros
Septendecillion has 54 zeros
Octodecillion has 57 zeros
Novemdecillion has 60 zeros
Vigintillion has 63 zeros
Googol has 100 zeros.
Centillion has 303 zeros (except in Britain, where it has 600 zeros)
Googolplex has a googol of zeros

"Gaz" comes from Gazzen, from Latin "earthly edge", or end of the earth, abbreviated to gaz (literally 28810 ancient Greek miles, been one full revolution of the globe).

In short, a Gazillion has (28810 x 3) zeros, that is a Gazillion has 86430 zeros.

Respectfully,:)
Adriana

[Torq]

Lmao !!

T

[gagged_Louise]

Meena, first off my apologies for calling you a randian but (as I have already stated in a pm to you) your reasoning sounded very Randian Objectivist to me, you had referred to Ayn Rand in terms that sounded pretty lauadtory to me in another post, and the two kind of went together.

Seems we are actually on to the same thing by the concept of"net neutrality" - half an hour ago I thought we were just not talking of the same rule - but maybe we do not see the possible outcome of this issue in the same way. I humbly suggest that you are drawing too sharp a line between the businesses that operate on the web and us, ordinary citizens, students, offline workers and our future children. Any one of us, in principle, could become involved in a web-based business one day, and many companies and communities that are well-known on the web have started as small half-amateur projects (e.g. Facebook) The line between "real journalism" and amateur publishing has effectrively been abolished by the web -. before let's say 1995 to publicize something fast you had to get it accepted by a newspaper or a publishing house, and the only people who were called journalists - who merited it - were the ones who actually worked in the media - today you can be a self-employed rookie journalist, a stalker photographer, a web stringer, a blogger/site owner or whatever and publicize your own take on the news, your own story. Besides Yahoo and msn employees spend a lot of office time chatting an dollying on the web too. So the efforts of ISPs to make a bigger share of profits would IMO hit harder on iust as private/non-company users and our needs than on Yahoo but essentially it's a democracy issue.

While everyone travels on railways and highways and these days everyone uses the web network highways - has to use them, lots of real-life services simply presuppose that you can do your bit online - there are differences. An ISP or a web site can make a lot of money by advertising spots or by more or less hidden costs to their users, while there's a limit to how much publicity you can put up by a highway without endangering the traffic (at least here in Europe the rules for wayside billboarding are fairly restrictive). And while both highways and cyberhighways need maintenance, the web highways don't get more worn down as a simple fiunction of how many people are accessing a site,. though a powerful burst of interest can slow the traffic for a while. So when there are common costs of keeping up the main cable networks, I think some of them should be paid, or guranteed, by taxes and under some public control.

[Thorne]

"Gaz" comes from Gazzen, from Latin "earthly edge", or end of the earth, abbreviated to gaz (literally 28810 ancient Greek miles, been one full revolution of the globe).

In short, a Gazillion has (28810 x 3) zeros, that is a Gazillion has 86430 zeros.

Respectfully,:)
Adriana
Except that the Romans would have used the stadia, rather than the Greek mile. The stadia would have been equal to about .114 miles, or 185 meters. With a circumference of about 25,000 miles, that makes a gazillion equal to (217480 x 3), or 652,440 zeros, nearly eight times the Greek system you supplied. No wonder the Roman Empire lasted so long!

[Torq]

Damn,,, ROFFLMAO!!!!!

T