Justin Krejci wrote: > Feel free to call me cynical after you read this :) > > In general i am a fan of net neutrality, i think corporate interests (greed > for money) will eventual lead to many companies elbowing out smaller or > undesireable voices from their large scale networks. on the other hand it is > a delicate situation because if a company invests in its own deployment of > network infrastructure why are they not allowed to divvy up access however > they like? the problem to me is these massive monopolies or even co-opolies > (is that a word?) will work for what their best interests are which > frequently will result in taking advantage of customers every chance they > get. then only after long and tiring government and private investigations, > court involvements, watch dog marketing campaigns, etc will there be a "take > it easy on the customers" change of attitude (at least enough change to stop > the onslaught). The importance of the internet to the world i think means we > need to have some regulation on companies involved in connecting the > internet. it is not just a little side project/hobby/convenience for people > and companies, it is massively critical for large swaths of the population. > Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is another > challenging issue regarding personal rights, including "corporate personal > rights", and public good and "public rights". There are many examples of > this in history. Freedom, rights, responsibilities, value systems, beliefs, > nothing is easy when dealing with a large enough scales. > > I tend to believe the strong pressure for companies to make money will not > result in a better internet overall if significant portions of the internet > are unevenly balanced with the sole reason being an advertiser is willing to > pay for it. The tight integration of the internet into more and more aspects > of our lives is making it more and more an important part of our > infrastructure and less and less a convenience/luxury. > > We need to be careful and having OPEN and FREE public discussions are > critically important. I am glad there are non trivial people attending this > like the FCC commissioners and Senator Franken and other prominent > individuals. The people need to be heard no matter their viewpoint. > > As for the recent google/Verizon publicity, as far as I know they neither of > those companies have the rights to form, enact, or police government > regulations. As I understand it they are just making a proposal, which if > passed into law by our government would likely go thru tons of revisions > during their procedures of creating laws. > > Wish I could go tonight but I have other commitments already. > > -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Coleman > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:15 AM > To: TCLUG Mailing List > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Net Neutrality hearing in Minnesota > > I found the guy pushing regulation (or in this case, making the unofficial > stance official) today on MPR was way off base. > > He said that an independent blogger would have no voice without paying money > in the proposal by Google and Verizon. In my experience, this is not true; > they just won't reap the benefits of people getting their content at the > speed which their provider provides. > > I can afford a 12Mbit/2Mbit line at home now. Cheaper than colocation of my > custom server (capacity right now of 7TB, soon 14TB) because I don't have > $15,000 to spend on the rack space requirements for the servers plus the > monthly colocation costs for 2U to 8U of space. > > My two bits. > -- > Ryan > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Erik Mitchell wrote: > > >> Harry, I think that's a very important point to make. There was a >> diary on DailyKos about the recent dustup over the Google/Verizon >> story: >> >> >> > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/12/892044/-End-of-the-Internet-As-W > e-Know-It! > >> In short, it was broadly misreported by folks on the left. The story >> looked on the surface like a big corporations doing evil things story >> and so it got reported that way. >> >> In the process, the concept of net neutrality became redefined. Media >> outlets were defining it as saying that different content TYPES should >> be treated equally, rather than different content providers. >> Obviously, if this definition of net neutrality took hold, it would be >> bad -- especially in wireless. If you have a minute, read the diary. >> The dkos guy does a better job of explaining it than I can. >> >> My hope is that there are people at this hearing that know what >> they're talking about, who will stand up and make a good case. I don't >> think more regulation on the internet would be a good thing. However, >> I support net neutrality, in that every person's or company's data >> should get the same priority as anyone else's (given the same type of >> content). >> >> Anyway, it's a tough issue to get your head around, especially for the >> layperson. And unfortunately, Congress is full of laypeople. >> >> Long live Ted Stevens, >> >> -Erik >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Harry Penner <hpenner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of flames: the Internet as we know it has flourished in >>> large part because its original sponsor, the federal government, has >>> mostly left it alone. Why do we think adding government regulations >>> to it will make it better (or preserve the freedom we enjoy on it)? >>> Generally speaking, doesn't regulation take away freedom rather than >>> increasing it, by definition? I'm no futurist but it seems to me that >>> putting restrictions on the big guys is likely to affect us little >>> guys in some unforeseen but unpleasant way. >>> >>> Sorry if the above sounds trollish but I just think we should be >>> careful what we ask for. With companies you can usually vote with >>> your feet to try to change or avoid their bad behavior, but >>> regulations are usually universal and forever... And the regs will >>> surely by written by people not nearly as close to or as thoughtful >>> about the problem as we tclug'ers... >>> >>> Seems to me we ought to show up and tell the FCC to keep their paws off >>> > us. > >>> -Harry >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:52, Brian <goeko at Goecke-Dolan.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There will be a hearing on the Net Neutrality here in the Twin Cities. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://savetheinternet.com/mnhearing >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not associated with this, just thought people would be interested >>>> to know. >>>> >>>> ==>brian. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >>>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >>>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Erik K. Mitchell -- Web Developer >> erik.mitchell at gmail.com >> erik at ekmitchell.com >> http://ekmitchell.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > Well stated, Justin. Tom