From the column below on net neutrality:
<lots of stuff snipped>
"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?"
This is a ludricrous statement. Mission critical applications, such as
robotic surgery, have never
relied on the basic public internet. So it is a classic straw-man argument
to suggest that net neutrality
would mean that spam and my senseless emails would be comingled with life
and death
pokes from an open heart surgery. This is the kind of shibboleth-thinking
that needs to be challenged.
Whatever the merits or demerits of net neutrality, it is important to keep
the conversation from
sinking to this kind of rhetoric, I think. Although it might make mildly
entertaining reading, it sheds no
light and only confirms misinformation about what net neutrality means and
is.
In my opinion.
Steve Snow
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Meisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:25 AM
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-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.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 7/21/2006
_______________________________________________
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.
