politics and ethics of ceasing net neutrality.

[endless]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Furious does not even begin to describe how I feel about this.

If it goes through, I would happily be the strategist behind a revolution.
If I am inactive in the days following this post...assume I'm being beaten and brainwashed by the morons whom I cannot question (but simply ignore).

[acyckowski]

Yeah, well, that's what happens when you start taking the French seriously.

[jesse]

The age of info-terrorism has opened numerous floodgates for business and government to extend their powers in their areas of jurisdiction. The potent blend of general fear of the unknown, constant media reminders of terrorism, death and uncertainty beating these mantras to a population desperate for perceived stability and security. Now, under the wide excuse of state and civilian protection due to constant national and international "threats", some see this as the perfect moment to clamp down and inspect everything. You know the deal, make themselves seem more important and irreplaceable than they really are.

I remember some similar attempts and the backlash that came stateside in response to a scheme which would carve up the modern Internet into different segments, a rough parallel to a cable tv system as they've mentioned in the article. This was some 1.5 years ago and I will have to look this up in detail before I start to spew bullshit left and right on the matter. In some ways this is already happening on many commercial sites: you get bombarded with advertisements, pop-ups and the like. Fortunately these can still be disabled with the help of a few scripts and built-in browser functionality. The problem here is that these sorts of legislations can really turn up the heat and shut off most exits from the constant advertising, and soon-to-be greater control over what can be viewed, if anything at all.

Yeah, well, that's what happens when you start taking the French seriously.

:huh:

[Pandemonium]

Censoring the net is a horrible proposition. Limiting people's ability to communicate and converse ideas.....................sounds like George Orwell's 1984.

[RBM]

Censoring the net is a horrible proposition. Limiting people's ability to communicate and converse ideas.....................sounds like George Orwell's 1984.

It's a control issue, at it's core.

Perhaps you've heard of the Halliburton Camps (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in the US ? We won't know if it's true, till it's too late to do anything about it.

[reb]

Pandemonium stole my words. is there a way that 'regulators' could be forced to have lobotomies? or is it already too late?

[dogwoodlover]

This has little to do with any sort of "control issue."

Sure, the government would love to know more about you, and to lessen your chances of subverting it by spying on you constantly, however I don't think that's what this is about.

It's about business, more than anything. If business can utilize the government to control and restrict (which is the norm) media such as the internet, they can exploit these restrictions to increase their cash flow. Clearly, the "cable television" model of the internet is far superior in terms of profit-making ability than the current ISP model. Whoever ends up being the "cable television" companies of the internet will be absolutely filthy rich, and those businesses which contract through these companies will also be able to further their profits. Not to mention the extent to which control can then be exerted over things such as illegal file distribution, violations of intellectual property, etc.

This same model is already currently being applied to our computers. Nowadays almost all computers being produced contain latent hardware for the future implentation of TC (see "Trusted Computing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"). The idea is, give the business end more control while taking away control from the consumer, as a means of making computers and the internet more "business friendly" (i.e. we tell you what you can do and how).

[RBM]

@ dogwoodlover

Read your own words:
If business can utilize the government to control and restrict

I guess I goofed earlier so I'll reenter.

Regarding the internet broadly and the fight to control how it is used, another words, the competing visions held by business and others, one would most likely find The Cluetrian Manifesto (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a good read.

The Cluetrain Manifesto is a set of 95 theses organized and put forward as a manifesto, or call to action, for all businesses operating within what is suggested to be a newly-connected marketplace. The ideas put forward within the manifesto aim to examine the impact of the Internet on both markets (consumers) and organizations. In addition, as both consumers and organizations are able to utilize the Internet and Intranets to establish a previously unavailable level of communication both within and between these two groups, the manifesto suggests that the changes that will be required from organizations as they respond to the new marketplace environment.

Doc Searls (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a co-author. I read him regularly but both of his co-authors are bloggers/activists in this area.

As I tend to do, naturally, I will start at an instance, in this case, the nexus between the net and business. I then mentally drill down to the aspect of human nature that I think feeds into the nexus. Then I pop back up to the nexus itself.

Here is an old Searls piece at Linux Journal titled Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is about.

The only reason I chose to post this piece was because it was the first Google return (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to the search string 'creating scarcity to profit Doc Searls'. Creating scarcity is a broad base strategy to keep a price higher than it might otherwise settle at.

Cutting users rights certainly fits the definition of creating scarcity.

[jesse]

This has little to do with any sort of "control issue."
[...]
The idea is, give the business end more control while taking away control from the consumer, as a means of making computers and the internet more "business friendly" (i.e. we tell you what you can do and how).

"I'm not controlling you, I am simply telling you what's best for you because I know and more importantly because I _CAN_"

Government and business go hand-in-hand and they can play off one another when it is most convenient. Government tells you what to think and what to believe, business tells you what to buy and consume. Reminds me of carving up the cake. Alternatively, a big game of pimps and hos. :pimp:

Sure, the government would love to know more about you, and to lessen your chances of subverting it by spying on you constantly, however I don't think that's what this is about.

It's about business, more than anything. If business can utilize the government to control and restrict (which is the norm) media such as the internet, they can exploit these restrictions to increase their cash flow. Clearly, the "cable television" model of the internet is far superior in terms of profit-making ability than the current ISP model. Whoever ends up being the "cable television" companies of the internet will be absolutely filthy rich, and those businesses which contract through these companies will also be able to further their profits. Not to mention the extent to which control can then be exerted over things such as illegal file distribution, violations of intellectual property, etc.

This same model is already currently being applied to our computers. Nowadays almost all computers being produced contain latent hardware for the future implentation of TC (see "Trusted Computing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"). The idea is, give the business end more control while taking away control from the consumer, as a means of making computers and the internet more "business friendly" (i.e. we tell you what you can do and how).

Again, control tends to mean forcefully removing choice and options and directing everything to a certain path. Wouldn't it be callous to not think there are financial and social control profits to be had?

[jesse]

Content carve up of net begins (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Save the Internet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I mentioned this several days ago and eventually ended up putting this into the back burner. It is disturbing given that there are many stakeholders which would be unable to contain their satisfaction if given the authority to decide what can be viewed and what has to be suppressed on the Internet. I'm sure there are many ways of pitching these ideas under pseudonyms and misleading Orwellian language which say one thing and eventually lead to constricting the Internet into another Fox News outlet.

You'd think that there are much more important social issues which require resolution and addressing instead of fear mongering and roiling about how to 'carve' up the Internet as the bbcnews article would suggest.