I've emailed Andrew a response, and cc'ed this list. I'd suggest that those who disagree with his views on network neutrality contact him directly, also with a cc to the list. It'd be interesting to hear his arguments on this, and he'll certainly more compelled to respond if he's engaged by a larger number of voices on this issue.
I think he's right on point about MySpace, however...it's far too easy to fearmonger about the dangers of cyberspace, and we're seeing far too much fearmongering passing for responsible reporting in the media these days when it comes to social networking technologies. Dave. ------------------- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 ------------------- Charlie Meisch wrote: > > Thoughtful insight on two topics that we've discussed in this forum. > > Cheers, > Charlie Meisch > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-07-20-revisiting-old-columns_x.htm > > > Revisiting MySpace protection, ethanol fuel and net neutrality > Posted 7/20/2006 3:01 PM ET > After a column appears, I often get e-mail with more information about > the subject or simply food for thought. At the same time, the news > marches on, proving, disproving, or adding new twists to what I've said. > So every now and again I like to revisit a few of my previous columns to > see what's changed either in the world or in my thinking. > > MySpace, the latest frontier > > When our politicians and media need to scare us, they love to turn to > technology for a bogeyman. They'll take a handful of horror stories, > blow them out of proportion, then demand that someone do something to > protect the children. > > As I pointed out in March, the latest victim of this is MySpace, a site > that lets anyone create a website and connect easily with other people > doing the same. > > It's only gotten worse. The Texas attorney general complained that > MySpace isn't doing enough to protect users, such as a 14-year-old girl > using MySpace because — seriously — it didn't do enough to stop her from > going on a date with a guy she met there, who subsequently raped her. > > And now Congress is considering a bill, the "Deleting Online Predators > Act," that would require libraries and schools that receive federal > funding to "protect minors from commercial social networking websites > and chat rooms." > > The government wants to prevent minors from going to sites that could > possibly cause them harm. Forget a "Teaching Parents to Act Like Parents > Act," or an "Understanding the Real Threats Act." Let's legislate from > headlines and develop policy from anecdotes. > > It's not just stupid, it's dangerous. The same logic used to justify a > ban on these sites could be used to justify a ban on anything — on any > site that espouses a view the government deems "harmful." After all, we > don't just need to protect our kids from harmful people, we need to > protect them from harmful ideas. > > Like every other bandwagon, this one will eventually run out of steam, > but for the time being we're apparently stuck with it. > > <snip> > > Shifting to neutral > > Back in February, I wrote in support of "network neutrality" the idea > that the companies that make the Internet's pipes or, if you prefer, > "tubes" wouldn't be allowed to create different tiers of service. The > fear is that only those that can afford to pay exorbitant fees would be > able to deliver things like high-quality video. > > But a few weeks later I wrote that I had changed my mind based on what I > had learned since then. I think a Net neutrality law is at best > unnecessary, at worst a bottleneck to development. > > Since then, I've clarified my thinking further. There's a fundamental > question here: Do the pipe owners view what travels on their networks > based on the content, or their connection? > > Let me clarify. > > Imagine in the near future that Disney wants to stream the movie > "Aladdin" to a customer in New York. To get it there, it starts on > Sprint (Disney's network provider) but has to travel over Verizon's > network. Disney pays Sprint a lot of money for a fast connection, but of > course doesn't pay Verizon a thing. > > Here's the $64,000 question: Will Verizon see "Aladdin" as content > coming from Disney, or as bytes coming from Sprint? > > Proponents of Net neutrality say Verizon will consider it a Disney > movie, and demand money from Disney. Opponents say Verizon will consider > it generic Sprint data, and send it through as always. > > The latter is more likely, for the majority of content. Pipe builders > are not going to cripple or block access to anyone's content. Market > forces and anti-trust laws won't allow it. > > But a less-regulated Internet will give those providers the ability to > build ultra-high-speed connections for customers that need them for > as-yet unknown applications — maybe a nationwide virtual-reality game, > or long-distance robotic surgery. > > So we're not talking about affecting anyone's home connections. Your > ability to use Google or watch YouTube isn't in danger. The next big > thing will still be able to get access to your heart and mind. This is > about being able to give priority to certain traffic for businesses that > need a guaranteed speed. > > A poorly crafted neutrality law would prevent the Verizons of the world > from being able to offer that ultra-high-speed connection. "Sorry, but > the law says your robotic-surgery traffic has to be mingled with e-mails > to Mom." And would you want surgery by a doctor who may be experiencing > a half-second delay? > > <snip> > > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
