I think, like anything else, this has both its positive and negative aspects. And this is well encapsulated by those far more intelligent than I:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
Mike
>>> Kyle Banerjee <banerjek_at_UOREGON.EDU> 12/08/2010 3:56 a.m. >>>
At the risk of being the odd man out, I'm not yet convinced that deals like
this are a bad idea. Regardless the merits of the deal, I think clinging to
the principle that all information should be treated the same is a
disservice.
Here's the rub -- some services are far less useful (and can even be made
useless) with slower speeds or latency that does not affect the usability of
other services. Just speaking broadly, significantly slower speeds and
greater latency is acceptable with email than with regular web browsing.
Significantly slower speeds and greater latency is acceptable with regular
web browsing than with streaming video/audio or database calls.
We rely on many services, and declaring them all equal has the effect
of hosing valuable services in the name of protecting them. Wanting to
believe that enough capacity is out there to make prioritization unnecessary
does not make it true.
Our professional paranoia is a major contributing factor to our
marginalization. We are obsessed with g-men coming in to find out what books
someone checked out, but we don't sweat the fact that the vast bulk of the
information people use (i.e. google, amazon, netflix, FB, meebo, just about
everything else on the web, their CC transactions, etc) is far more
extensive and contains far more interesting info because they need it to be
able to provide what people actually want.
kyle
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Lovins, Daniel wrote:
>
> I haven't studied it closely enough myself yet, but here's Larry Lessig's
>> take, courtesy of the New York Times:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/a-deregulation-debacle-for-the-internet
>>
>
> Here's a tiny url for that and its several associated links:
> http://tinyurl.com/23w6c5u
>
> IMHO, everyone is overlooking the basic issue that the legal system
> addresses, i.e. the interests of economic expansion [i.e. profit generation]
> always override personal concerns (e.g. the "good" to society of the former
> override the non-economic "rights" [e.g. freedom of expression] of the
> latter).
>
> IMHO (do I have to keep saying that?), it is time for the provision of
> information to be considered a vital public service, rather than a form of
> entertainment or data being a restrictable commercial commodity, and for
> ISPs to be designated "public utilities" subject to the same levels of
> government oversight as other "utilities." Or, maybe the Government can be
> the ISP for the US and we can receive Internet access as a "right" via our
> tax forms.
>
> Still there will always be the problem of who controls the corporations
> and/or the governments at any particular time. We seem to be evolving
> toward some sort of restructuring of both those concepts, which, I suspect,
> will do a great deal of harm in the process until the madness of
> misdirection is recognized.
>
> Cheers!
>
> jgm
>
> John G. Marr
> Cataloger
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> jmarr_at_unm.edu
> jmarr_at_flash.net
>
>
> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside the
> box."
>
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
Received on Wed Aug 11 2010 - 16:23:41 EDT