[...] Contact the Webmaster Link to Article youtube YouTube Tuesday: Pearl Jam and Net Neutrality » Posted at lazy geisha on [...]

Nina-

For the sake of equal time for the other side of the debate…..

There are those who point out that net neutrality is, in large part, a misnomer being pushed by Google, in order to enjoy ad revenues from cell phones and other mobile devices, without having to spend a dime on the considerable capital investment which would underpin such access.

Telcos no longer have much of a monopoly on anything important. If they price backbone network services wrong, they’ll lose traffic and, thus, revenues.

Rather, those who build the infrastructure deserve to have that investment earn reasonable returns.

With the rise of wifi and other wireless distribution methods, it’s unclear just how valuable the Telcos’ total infratstructure will actually be over time.

Perhaps it’s a hedge that Google is making moves calculated to give it direct access, via its own hardware, to end users. In case its net neutrality campaign becomes seen for what it is, a self-indulging lobbying effort, and fails.

As always, love the kissing girls!

xoxox

-saratoga

saratoga,

I think you’re confusing a few very different but quite related topics here.

Net neutrality is by no means a misnomer being pushed by Google, but they do have a vested interest in preserving net neutrality. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and many other well known technology/internet businesses support net neutrality because it makes sense, and because they already pay to use the infrastructure.

Let me explain it like this; I own this website, which means that I pay for the domain name and I pay for hosting. A portion of my hosting fees goes to pay for my upstream access to the internet backbone networks which means that no matter where you are in the world, you can access my site and my data will circle the globe to its destination unimpeded. That is point A. Point B is in your home, office, mobile device, or anywhere else you access the internet. You pay on the other side of the road by paying an ISP for access to their networks. So both content providers and end users already pay to use the infrastructure. What the telecom companies want to do is erect a toll booth in the middle of the road which will in effect act as a gate, allowing those who pay, preferential access to the network. The toll booth is a bad thing, and it basically would allow telecom companies to double dip. They’re already getting paid by both you the end user in the form of subscription fees to an ISP and by me as a content provider in the form of hosting/access fees. (My data actually lives in the Ukraine, but you’d never know that because of net neutrality)

Now you use Google’s free Blogger service. Part of what allows Google to offer the Blogger service free of charge is because of their lucrative ad revenue business. When you use their search engine, it’s paid for by ad revenue, when you use gmail, it’s paid for by ad revenue, and a portion of that collected revenue goes to telecommunication companies in the form of upstream provider fees to access the internet.

Other examples; when you use your MSN Messenger, you expect it to work, and it does because of net neutrality. When you post a YouTube video, you expect it to be seen. If net neutrality wasn’t there, its likely YouTube never would have existed. It would have been quashed by competing interests who also own the networks in favor of their own products. Net neutrality saratoga, is good for innovation and it’s good for business.

The internet backbone started out as ARPANET, which then peeled off into the MILNET and NSFNet, the latter which was decommissioned and replaced by networks built by ISPs. Here’s a map in .pdf format of the internet backbone and who owns it.

The suggestion that telecommunications companies no longer have a monopoly on anything important is a little naïve I think. There is most certainly an existing duopoly between Teleco/Cable companies, many of which are so inbred and entwined at this point that it’s difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends, but they most certainly do control all internet access in this country. They may go by different names, but they all must work together otherwise the internet would cease to function. Your argument that those who build the infrastructure deserve to have that investment earn reasonable returns is fine, they already do! What they want is to exploit it. And make no mistake about it, you don’t have a choice about which IXP (Internet Exchange Point) your data will cross thru; it is dependent on where you live. Additionally, many communities are limited by just one choice for end user high speed ISP. Where I live I have two; the cable company or the phone company. As for WiFi distribution, that’s just another end user ISP. WiFi still must access the same IXPs which run the internet.

Also, it’s infeasible for Google to provide direct access to end users. Google must cross the internet backbone just like everyone else, which they most certainly pay for.

I’d encourage you to read Net Neutrality 101 and not view this issue as a bunch of utopian loving liberals trying to rob corporations of profits.

Thanks sweetie!

xoxo,
nina

saratoga,

I’m glad you liked my girls kissing video! lol!

xoxo,
nina

Nina-

I actually already know about telecomm pricing, since I have worked in the industry.

Rather than get into a long disagreement with you, let me simply point out the following.

You gloss over payments made by consumers to their provider for cable or mobile phone access. Yet, these are set based upon existing infrastructure, demand, service levels, etc. Thus, I would disagree that telcos will be ‘double dipping.’

In reality, Google is attempting to get Congress to force telcos, who have spent money building infrastructure, for which they plan to be compensated according to the price various access plans will bear, to provide high speed, wide band access for no additional fees.

I don’t think it’s naive at all to believe that telcos no longer have a monopoly.

Just look at all the cable triple plays available. Not to mention, if you wish to go that route, satellite.

Contrary to your assertion that cable and telcos are indistinguishable, they are not at all the same, nor even remotely in bed together. Verizon may be inept, but they and the cable companies are assuredly taking deadly aim at one another. I would not bet on the telcos- I’ve seen their culture up close. It’s not going to win, unless via lobbying.

No, it’s not about telcos anymore. It’s about Google being run by very clever guys who are playing for free access to networks built by others.

And, yes, Google could very well build or buy access, if they really felt it was cheaper than having to pay to distribute their wares.

That’s another point. Why should I pay a tax via my basic cell or cable rates to subsidize those who want free availability of web information on their cell phones? I shouldn’t.

Either they should pay specifically for those services (i.e., non-net-neutrality) to a mobile address, or Google should pay to distribute its information, because their ‘call’ is qualitatively different than the nature of voice traffic or text msgs on a cell network.

But, as I said, it’s ok with me that we disagree on this, Sweetie.

We just see different aspects of this complex socio-business issue.

xoxox

-saratoga

saratoga,

Well. I’m sitting here wondering if you’re just not understanding the issue or, and please forgive me, if you’re throwing bullshit at the wall to see what sticks?

You’ve somehow conflated multiple businesses with divergent interests into the tiny funnel of network neutrality, none of which have anything to do with net neutrality. And why demonize Google? Google is a content provider and service company, not an ISP. And I’m not sure what your issue is here. Google already pays for access to the infrastructure. Anyone online pays for access to the infrastructure. The owners of the infrastructure are already getting paid. So what’s the problem?

Google, like many other companies, such as Microsoft, offer multiple internet based services to consumers. The companies pay upstream fees to access the internet, and the end user pays to access the internet. Everybody is getting paid. The companies which own the IXPs (whether their primary business is cable television or telephones it doesn’t matter) want to create a tiered system which will charge content providers a toll/tax/fee for premium access to the IXPs. This is the problem. The reason it’s a problem is because it will create unfair competition in the market. The content provider with the most money will be able to squeeze out those who don’t; i.e. bloggers, mom & pop e-businesses, open source web projects, upstarts, innovators, and any other content provider who cannot afford to pay the tax for premium access to the high speed networks. Many of the owners of the physical lines and networks which drive the internet also have competing businesses; i.e. Verizon, AT&T

I’m a little confused why you’ve twice dragged wireless phones into this. Wideband, Broadband, WiFi, VoIP, dial-up; all access the same internet. What on earth does satellite or cable television or cell phones have to do with net neutrality?

Also I think it’s important to understand that most people interested in this issue agree that the net neutrality debate is about the last mile of the backbone, meaning, the part that gets to the end user. This article from CIO.com might help.

Let’s say you use Verizon internet in your home, and your favorite website is run by XYZ, but XYZ doesn’t pay the tax which Verizon demands for premium access to their networks which reach their customers, so now you have problems accessing XYZ. Instead, Verizon has a competing service to XYZ and they want you to use their service, so they quash XYZ and deliver you their product instead. You don’t have a problem with that? But wait, now you say, “Well you just get rid of Verizon!” But what if Verizon is the only game in town? Many communities in this country only have one choice for high speed internet access. I mean, despite the rah-rahs about America, our internet infrastructure compared to other developed countries is shameful and woefully lacking.

I’m reading the rest of your comment and I’m sorry to say that I’m a little confused. You’ve made some contradictory arguments concerning what I think you mean by VoIP and Wireless phone service, but all of those services which access the internet are already paying to do so. Since you’re anti-tax, I would think you’d be upset about telecom companies wanting to set up a tiered system for access. I mean, your On Dominance blog could very well be squeezed right out of the market!

We can certainly disagree sweetie, but I think it’s important to use the same facts about the same topic. If you have some citations or links which you could include, I’d certainly read them.

The bottom line is this; everyone online, whether you’re a content provider or an end user is already paying the owners of the infrastructure to access the internet. If you’re complaint is that Google is developing VoIP as a competitor to Verizon cell phones, well… sorry! If Google builds a better mousetrap then so be it! The market will determine whether or not Google is successful. It shouldn’t be because Verizon is one of the seven companies which own the IXPs and wants to use predatory practices to stifle Google’s innovation. The issue is much larger than telephone service hon.

Thanks!

xoxo,
nina

Nina-

I brought in the telcos because you did.

If Google would build access, then we’d see a truly level playing field.

The backers of the ‘net neutrality’ positions have been very clever in their choice of terms. But it doesn’t make it necessarily ‘neutral,’ in the sense of fair rules about returns to capital.

This is one of those cases in which presenting ‘facts’ doesn’t necessarily clinch the conclusion, when those ‘facts’ are of suspect nature.

I’ve seen the same sort of phenomenon countless times as people debate various governmental budget, spending and deficit issues.

Observers and analysts whom I respect have typically come out against net neutrality. Most prominently Holman Jenkins, Jr., of the Wall Street Journal.

Lastly, recent work I’ve seen actually puts America among the top countries in internet access, when adjusted properly for our greater geographic distances and rural population.

xoxox

-saratoga

“…In reality, Google is attempting to get Congress to force telcos, who have spent money building infrastructure…”

That money that telcos are using to build that infrastructure is public money, as a result of being granted monopoly status in turn for limited competition in the marketplace. However, as with most corporations that practice bad capitalism (as opposed to good capitalism), give em an inch and them think they’re entitled to a mile. Which leads to the next point that most of them practice collusion since there isn’t any real difference in prices (ie price fixing). And then there’s the matter of all those tax breaks that receive from Congress (aka corporate welfare).

And despite all the financial breaks telcos get via legislation, they still manage to fuck it up like this.

If all people could start businesses with the deck stacked in their favor like these businesses have (with very little risk involved which makes it a stretch to argue that it is capitalist), everyone would be business owners. The only difference here is the amount of capital people have available to them.

Like I said, good capitalism versus bad capitalism (corporate welfare).

saratoga,

The telecommunications companies are the issue, not wireless phone service. But why should Google build their own internet backbone when they already pay to use the existing IXPs? There’s also complete precedent with this too; when Ronnie Rayguns broke up the phone company in the 1980’s into a bunch of baby bells, AT&T owned almost all of the long lines in the country. You then saw upstart long distance companies which leased access from AT&T, many of these companies (such as MCI & Sprint) owned nothing, built nothing, yet the FTC ruled that they should be able to compete with AT&T for long distance service. Why? Because it was good for the consumer. Net Neutrality is good for the consumer, and if you think about it, it’s also good for business because it allows innovation and growth, and it’s completely free market driven.

I’m not surprised that an opinion writer for the Wall Street Journal like Holman Jenkins Jr. would come out against net neutrality. The WSJ is hardly the bastion of consumer protection in this country, but the issue of net neutrality is most certainly about what’s best for the end user. And since Google already pays to use the network, it’s logical to follow that if they develop VoIP based products, that they will have to pay the owners of the IXP networks to use them that way, just like any other company doing VoIP. But again, this is not just about telephone service. Net Neutrality is about non discrimination of data as I very clearly wrote in my entry.

The OECD has broadband penetration statistics for 2006 here. Japan leads the world in direct fiber connections to households, and Asia Pacific countries lead the world in terms of broadband growth and penetration, tho Denmark tops the world in penetration per 100 households. The data is quite interesting, and it’s also quite remarkable how far down the list the US finds itself. Tho Canada leads the G7 in terms of growth and penetration.

Thanks hon!

xoxo,
nina

The WSJ is right there with the NY Post isn’t it now. ;D

Because telcos are bad business models, this is the result and why the US continues to decline against the rest of the world.
Shooting the Messenger’ Myth vs. Reality: U.S. Broadband Policy and International Broadband Rankings

When Carter broke up ATT, the promise was better, cheaper service from smaller telcos. That did not happen.

And as far as broadband, telcos have hated the fact that they can’t set up super highway tollroads. I too have worked in the Telecomm
industry during my career.

Also, it’s more efficient when locals do it ( as witnessed here and here ) rather than having the big telcos do it.

One lesson to be learned from de-regulation and privatisation has been that efficiency does not improve and costs will increase significantly because the private sector / publicly held corporations will try to maximize profits, which means they will charge more and offer less.

It’s a lesson learned from the corporate welfare giants in addition to overpaid and under-performing executives .

Also, another lesson learned from deregulation and privatisation is that they stifle creativity and progress (also another result of monopoly status which is anti-capitalist).

JW,

Thanks so much for these links and for your comments. I hadn’t fully considered the corporate welfare extended to America’s phone companies and the public money used to build our telecom infrastructure. The argument takes on an entirely different meaning when you factor all of that in. What I find so fascinating is the OECD data that I previously cited which was expanded on in your link. I would agree that the problem is competition, or a lack of competition in the marketplace. And I can again use myself as an example. We pay, as my husband puts it, “A shitload of money to Cox Communications for this goddamn pipeline”, and with that we get on average, depending on the time of day, 3.4 to 8.9 megabits per second. Tho our network lags at peak use times which means that we’re really not getting what we’re paying for. Since we pay for the highest tier of service, we should get 8.9 mbs all the time! My alternative is Verizon DSL (their FIOS service isn’t available in my area because they haven’t built the fiber network yet), which is much slower and only costs a little less than what I’m paying for now. So because there’s no real competition, I’m stuck with the cable company. We also get our phone and television service thru them because all of the telecom companies are bundling services now and over the long term it’s probably more cost effective this way. Tho, I have to purchase a separate wireless carrier because wireless isn’t currently bundled in like Verizon does. But back to the real issue; net neutrality. Since as a nation we didn’t get what we paid for or what we should have in terms of broadband access, I think its bullshit to give ISPs or IXPs control over anyone’s content. It’s like the argument I make about Microsoft; if they actually made products people wanted to use, they wouldn’t have these problems!

But let me also say, I am a capitalist! I like making money! But I like my freedoms a bit too much to hand them over to my ISP. Good capitalism is perfectly fine. Corporate welfare really needs to go away.

Thanks sweetie!

xoxo,
nina

ps – Yeah, I’m no fan of the WSJ either, especially since Murdoch owns it now. I like Bloomberg for business news.

I’m a fan of the Financial Times. It’s the only print paper I subscribe to (even if it does arrive a week late sometimes, it is that good). Although I rarely ever read the WSJ rag before Murdoch, it’s a great pleasure to to now compare its content to the NY Post. Considering the fact that is was even further to the right of Fox, maybe this means it tact left in its philosophy now, no? Of course that nutter Paul Gigot may still have some independence on what he writes.

Yes, hard to believe that in 2007 there places in the US where only dialup service is available. And in some cases, high speed internet is still years away.

It’s not a case of government being the problem as much as this is the way that some telcos want it, which is why they want to eliminate local service where possible and in the case of tv, local access channels on cable.

As far the good capitalism versus bad capitalism, you might take a look here. I think you can download a softcopy of the book. It might be different from some of the things I mentioned in earlier comments, but those were my opinions.

JW,

Well, reading the WSJ is usually pretty boring anyway, and their editorial page makes for some good laughs! It’s sometimes hard to believe that these people really think this way, like, were they dropped as infants? Did their momma forget to hug them? lol! Tho, you’re right… Gigot is a whacko. It’s no real surprise Karl Rove went to him to announce his ‘retirement’ from the White House. Matt Drudge and Robert Novak must have been busy! I think Karl is being chased out of town, and I loved Hillary’s comments today, “Gee… isn’t it nice to see him go?” hahahaha!

You know, I would love to see infrastructure as a real issue in this presidential election. Public works projects are important to a nation, and I’m really quite sick of right-wingers crying about it. Roads, Bridges, Powerlines, Water Works, and Internet Networks are neither right or left wing. They benefit everyone and they also create jobs when administered correctly, but therein lies the problem, greed and corruption ala Hallybuhrtons.

We used to be a great country; entrepreneurial and creative and we led the world. Now we’re laughingstocks.

Thanks for the great discussion sweetie. (You too saratoga!)

xoxo,
nina

Nina,

I stumbled upon your blog a few weeks ago and have greatly enjoyed the things you’ve written about so far. I was especially excited to see a post about Net Neutrality, something which I only just yesterday discovered was threatened. My mother and I have been talking recently about how we’re fed up with cable companies, phone companies, etc. denying American citizens up-to-date technology and keeping us behind much of the rest of the world in order to keep their monopoly status and not have to deal with competition. Isn’t our government supposed to be against this sort of thing?

I’ll admit, though, that I’m not very educated on the topic. Thanks for the links, and the discussions in the above comments have been most helpful as well. Love n’ peace!

…”We used to be a great country; entrepreneurial and creative and we led the world. Now we’re laughingstocks….”

The US actually had that once in a lifetime break for nations because after WWII, it was one of the few economies left intact, which meant that in addition to building goodwill by helping other nations rebuild via the Marshall Plan, it grew along by exporting ideas and products. That’s why the 50s were such a good era for our parents. The rest of the world has been catching up to the US over the past few decades and some nations have surpassed us, which is why Asia and Europe are strong these days, and now if you track currencies you can see that reflected against the US$, especially in Canada which has gained about 15% this year alone and is now almost a 1-for-1 match. They’ve also watched the US make mistakes and have tended to avoid those kinds mistakes themselves.

But I digress.

As far as cable tv, I remember back in the 70s when the concept of pay-tv was introduced. Why would you want to buy that? The selling points were more programming variety AND no commercials. Yeah, honest. The three main networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) back then were fairly solid in the programming department. Cable tv became a reality and we see the mess it is today because over time, then the argument became commercials were needed to offset programming costs. And the people that sold that idea, well, they’re long gone.

The government used to work for citizens, but then with Reagan in 1981, corporations starting becoming the government and the legislation reflected that.

Some of us are at an age we can look back and see how we got from there to here today.

L’Autom,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and welcome to geishaland!

Net Neutrality is an important issue that affects all of us who value a free and open internet. It’s interesting how these telecommunications companies are still making profits off 40 year old technology. The United States should be completely wired with a fiber-optic based network for everything. The technology is there, and quite frankly, so is the money. Unfortunately, the current administration cares more about corporations and corporate interests than ordinary Americans, so I don’t expect things to change anytime soon. Tho you may find this article about Internet 2 informative, and this one too.

I glad you found the links useful and please feel welcome here in my humble home.

xoxo,
nina

JW,

You make some great points here, thank you. I remember when we first got cable TV and my Father was one of those men who swore up and down that he would ‘never’ pay for television! But, of course we went that way. I was still in high school at the time, but I still remember loving MTV and all of those cool things we’d never seen before!

Something happened to America, and I think we can probably trace it back to Eisenhower’s last address about the Military-Industrial complex. It grew and grew and I think was completely exacerbated when Regan was elected. Things just have never quite been the same now have they?

Unfortunately, while many are old enough to remember, it’s a shame that they’ve also forgotten the lessons they should have learned.

Thanks hon! :kissing:

xoxo,
nina

THank you Nina. This has been very informative for me. I appreciate the fact you broach topics many will not.

Cheers!

Heavy stuff. I like the girls kissing. Like Nina is sharing Lisa with another blond…..
not the best kissing, but there is no such thing as beautiful women kissing.

Nina-

I think our frames of references, and the sources we believe to be relevant, are too diverse in this situation to allow for much constructive debate.

Further, JW is so far from me in terms of viewpoints on media organs, relevant contexts of telecommunications, economics, politics, etc., as to also make it pointless for me to respond point by point.

Suffice to say, we each firmly believe in our positions, bolstered by those truths and ideological allies we feel are relevant.

Affectionately, as always,

xoxoxox

-saratoga

Hi Alexa!

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me, and I’m glad that you found this topic informative. I think it’s a serious issue and is something we need to be aware of. When you think about it, the internet is really the one truly democratic world we’ve created, meaning that my site and content, or yours, or anyone else’s, is delivered to everyone the same way that any other site is. That search engine results are based upon traffic and popularity of content rather than someone paying to have their results show up first. A number of my journal entries show up on the first page of specific google searches because they’re popular topics and read by thousands, and that’s the way it should be, not because I paid for it. Any effort to change or manipulate that should be resisted.

I’m really happy to hear that my topic choices are appreciated. That means a lot to me sweetie.

Thanks!

xoxo,
nina

dinsdale_piranha,

lol! Well, yes, I suppose it is heavy stuff, but that’s what you get sometimes in geishaland!

Besides, if I were just some dumb chick writing a bunch of nonsense, you’d probably lose interest right?

And I did include something I knew you’d like too!

xoxo,
nina

saratoga,

Well, I certainly respect you and your wishes to bow out of this discussion, but I’m sorry to hear that you feel that you have nothing left to add. To expand on what I said in email, these debates which sometimes come up in geishaland! are not personal and they’re not meant to be. I think a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints is valuable and beneficial for everyone.

I don’t approach anything in life with the idea that I’m always right and anyone who disagrees with me is automatically wrong, in fact, I appreciate spirited discussion and that exchange of ideas and I’m more than willing to vigorously compete in that marketplace of ideas. I don’t think anyone who is successful in life gets there by having a closed mind.

However, I’m aware that you have certain worldviews which may be intractable, and that’s okay. It certainly doesn’t mean that a civil exchange is an impossibility. As for JW, I do not and will not speak for him, but if you prefer not to engage with him, I certainly respect that too. You are both my friend, and I certainly don’t feel that anyone has crossed the lines of civility in this discussion. That is something which I would not allow, and I don’t feel that anyone would disrespect me by maliciously attacking someone else in my space for any reason.

I think we all have something to add, no matter how much we may disagree in principle, I think it’s always important to consider all sides in any debate.

Thank you sweetheart for everything you offered and added to this discussion. I value that, and you, as much as anyone who may agree with me. :kissing:

love,
nina

A Call of Save the Internet - On Censoring Pearl Jam - By JOSHUA FRANK

Pssst….Nice zebra shirt there Nina. :D

And this was from an interview on Democracy Now! yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: The rock band Pearl Jam has accused AT&T of censorship, after the company removed comments the band made about President Bush during a recent concert that AT&T aired in an online webcast. During the concert, the band’s singer Eddie Vedder said, “George Bush, leave this world alone,” and “George Bush, find yourself another home.” For viewers watching the concert via AT&T, the remarks were edited out. This is an uncensored clip of the concert.

DANNY SCHECHTER: There you go.

JW,

The Joshua Frank article you linked perhaps makes the most succinct and clear argument about why we need net neutrality laws and protections.

Yet, after reading the Democracy Now transcript you also posted, there’s another component to this argument which is just as valid. With media consolidation being what it is in this country, the internet is the last place where a complete free flow of ideas exists. Where alternative media, indy radio, and a utopian terrain flows free.

Corporate media already controls the message in this country, whether we’re discussing politics, finance, science, opinion, global warming, war, entertainment… they control it all. They control what we see, hear, read, and are exposed to, and the internet the way it is right now as a neutral network, is a HUGE threat to their ability to control the message and manage the flow of information and thereby the citizens of this country.

Without net neutrality we’d be no different than China.

A free and open internet is essential to the survival of this waning democracy. We’ve already lost the fight when it comes to the airwaves, the newsstand, the television, the library, and perhaps even the bedroom. We cannot lose this. I think we truly need to view net neutrality as the line in the sand when it comes to our liberty.

Thank you for posting that article, and I’d encourage anyone with even a passing interest in this topic to please read it here.

xoxo,
nina

ps – lmao! Well honey, the lazy geisha often has to wear many hats! (or blouses!)

Remember, I am a wife & mother! hahahaha!

It was one of those “sunshine” moments for ATT, where they had already been doing it with other bands, and then they got caught when someone exposed them on it. They love censoring things out of the public eye.

JW,

Oh yes, it absolutely was, and from what I’ve read, this is most certainly not the first time AT&T (or their agents) have censored artists on its Blue Room service. But of course, that’s how censorship and an erosion of personal liberties takes place; in the backrooms, never out in the open.

No matter what your political or ideological stripe may be, I think people react the exact same way when confronted with the prospect of having something “they” may be interested in being censored or restricted by some corporate or Big Brother entity.

This is why I think net neutrality appeals to everyone because it truly affects everyone; end users, content providers and creators, businesses. If we don’t have neutrality laws protecting the internet, then we may wake up one day to find that some ISP has decided that my site, or your site, or saratoga’s site, or anyone’s site doesn’t belong on their network! That’s such a simple idea and I have a very hard time understanding how anyone could be opposed to network neutrality. It truly does have an impact on anyone who uses the internet for anything at all.

If I remember correctly, I think censorship and net neutrality were part of the logic used to strike down plans to create an .xxx domain category.

Thanks hon!

xoxo,
nina

Interesting article which deals with the discussion. The Last Days of Democracy

JW,

Thanks for the link sweetie! That’s really powerful stuff.

xoxo,
nina

Somewhere(?) I mentioned that ISPs were starting to put limits on internet traffic per users.

Here’s an article with some good links in it and in the comments.

Comcast and the amazing invisible bandwidth barrier.

This is why ISPs should be locally-owned.

JW,

Huh. That is such bullshit to put limits on users for the amount of bandwidth they can transfer in a month. Unfortunately these knee jerk reactions are because of the RIAA and the MPAA complaining about people using P2P networks for filesharing. Sadly many ISPs just are sick and tired of finding themselves in court because the RIAA continues to push a strategy of blaming everyone else for lagging CD sales because they can’t figure out the new distribution model, and the MPAA is completely paranoid about movie piracy. I mean, I wonder if any of them have actually ever tried to download a pirated movie and then burn it off to a DVD. It’s a giant pain in the ass.

Maybe when the RIAA and the MPAA start pricing their products fairly, illegal piracy will go away.

Thanks hon.

xoxo,
nina

They’re at it again.

AT&T: Say bad things about us and we’ll cancel your Internets

JW,

Wow. I think it’s time for another post.

Thanks hon.

xoxo,
nina