You are correct and have your finger on the solution.
In a world where the dollar counts then the source or content of all those
1's and 0's should be irrelevant.
The user decides. The user has the dollar. If the user is willing to pay
for a 3mb/s upload service why should anyone care if it for medical x-rays
or feline musicians ?
If the user wants 6mb/s service they pay for it.
The Public Library isn't the user. The community that supports the library
is the user and must put their money where their mouth is. If the community
identifies a 3mb/s or 6mb/s service as a public good they need to come up
with the funds and work out a deal with the provider. Or the government
needs to create their own separate infrastructure to provide it.
The Service Providers - Verizon, Google, whoever should be neutral on
content and customer. They should charge fair, sustainable, and (yes)
reasonably profitable fees for their services. (This is where the government
can help)
Any other plan is merely a ploy that will put the providers in control, or
the government in control, of all the internet content.
A bad idea. In a democratic world, legally, a tap dancing tabby is just as
important as a Cancer MRI. It would be wrong for anyone to use unfair
market practices or government oppression to force otherwise.
It's not a perfect solution; but, one that will provide the most equality
and social good for the most people, without undue restrictions on liberty.
TJP
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:09 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Google/Verizon policy framework
Quoting Kyle Banerjee <banerjek_at_UOREGON.EDU>:
>
> 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.
Kyle, generally I agree. But if just ONCE a youtube video of a cat
playing the piano gets priority over a medical xray, then *my* worst
fears will have been played out. It's not whether some services should
take precedence, but who decides. In a society where money talks, and
where no public entity is as powerful as a big corporation, the only
solution seems to be to not allow any preferences to be allowed.
kc
>
> 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
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Aug 12 2010 - 12:55:34 EDT