Jon Stewart on Net Neutrality. Adult content, but this is just too funny to pass up.
http://www.wservernews.com/1VIVGK/060724-Net_Neutrality Mike ************************* Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Meisch Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [DDN] Andrew Kantor on Social Networks, Net Neutrality 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-ol d-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.
