We discover the true nature of Bert’s inner soul...
"Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent
with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart."
On Nov 26, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is from last time around, before which PERHAPS the nervous nellies could
be excused for manufacturing scare scenarios. Which never materialized. And
even then, the answer to the title question was probably yes. So perhaps,
best to wonder why eh?
"Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent
with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart."
First false premise. What half-wit thinks that? The government is the
representative of the people, e.g. in cases where the people's general
welfare may be at odds with the self-serving interests of monopolies. A case
where "market forces" cannot take effect, to promote self-regulation. Always
nice to see an argument built on top of false premises.
"I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large
corporate interests, ..."
Hmmm, sorry. That does describe "paranoid yahoo," in my book. Given that we
are now in 2017, it is pretty impossible to make the case that Tom Wheeler
was in bed with the special interests. When Wheeler was first appointed as
Chairman, one might have been justified in raising that possibility, given
his previous job. But too bad, huh? It proved wrong THEN. Although, hold on,
now you could make the case. Everything points in that direction ... NOW. So
the truth must be, the quote above is far from generally true. Paranoid
yahoos feel compelled to generalize, which makes them sound so non-credible.
Look at FACTS, not trumped-up fiction.
"Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be
allocated somehow."
Another false premise. The Internet is not one giant broadcast system.
Traffic flows only when and where requested. And, aside from special cases,
e.g. within enterprise networks, the general rule for the Internet, from day
1, has been "best effort." If the local network becomes overloaded, the
effect is seen as gradual degradation. Over time, the solution has been to
increase the speed of all components. Prioritization has ALWAYS been the rare
exception to the rule. Always. So hey, something must be working right, eh?
"Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of 'creative
destruction' economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which
society raises its standard of living."
Yet another false premise. If choices for broadband service were in any way
similar to a "free market" model he mentions, this discussion wouldn’t be
taking place. In the dialup era, this was the case for ISP service. But even
then, that local monopoly DID EXIST - the telephone network, strictly
regulated to be neutral, without which ISPs would not have been possible.
"Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if
any place."
Patently false, since there are any number of rules and regs upon which
technology depends. Even leaving aside issues of user safety. How about, say,
the composition of gasoline, so people can fuel up their cars from any gas
station? How about the way roadways are designed, and traffic management? How
about electric power distribution, so you can be assured that any appliance
you buy will be able to be powered? How about spectrum management, so devices
which rely on RF communications do not interfere hopelessly and become
useless? Little if any place? Get real!
"Update 6 February, 2015: Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai
that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages
long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted.
Pai claims this regulation will give 'the FCC the power to micromanage
virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.'"
The scare mongering that paranoid yahoos love. Fact is, no such
micromanagement has existed, not from 2015 to now certainly, nor from 1906 or
1910, to now, on telephone networks. But yeah, the scenario unfolding TODAY
describes much more accurately the notion, "I see the U.S. government as a
dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, ..."
Indeed!! So, courts, do the right thing.
Bert
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#4284706970d5
May 14, 2014 @ 10:09 AM 312,982 ï…… The Little Black Book of
Billionaire Secrets
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?
Josh Steimle, Subscriber
I cover digital marketing for the entrepreneur as well as the CMO. Full Bio
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net
Neutrality†legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am
not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast
or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with. I’m
skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this
debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net
neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net
Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is
being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an
obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I
realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to
Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of
young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet.
Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.
I Want More Competition
Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree.
Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and
just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are
bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful
monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent
an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a
health care website that doesn't work, the same organization that can’t
keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization
that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into
space. Think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health
care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical
infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, or
the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in
common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On
the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has
bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking
around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?
The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at
managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally
created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock,
because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a
government that could move quickly--too quickly for the people to react in
time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be
slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with
products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality.
The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the
government is by definition. Can we put "bad" and "worse" together and end up
with "better"?
I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big
and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but
because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate
interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government
being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory
corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate
interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of
crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real
threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we
trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new
companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we're likely to end up
even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point
the politicians will tell us if they hadn't stepped in that things would be
even worse.
If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and
Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options
that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may
depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for
certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If
we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need
to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather
than create more of them.
I Want More Privacy
Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been
shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest
revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals
that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the
manufacturing process to aid its spying programs. Is this the organization we
trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under
Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves?
The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the
telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means
the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and
software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can
we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign
manner?
While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today
because you like who is running the government right now, remember that
government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the
government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the
House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?
I Want More Freedom
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary." -- James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent
with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S.
government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests,
seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging
perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a
majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If
I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and
that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net
Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking
up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow
Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S.
government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise
interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own
citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution. Simply put--I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust
any other government, even if "my team" wins the election. I see any increase
in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as
leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason
those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally
opposed to Net Neutrality.
What Instead?
Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be
allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me
decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will
see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to
political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we
leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want
at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than
the alternative.
Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative
destruction†economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which
society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without
its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s
Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate
poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government
regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to
effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the
technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the
antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser?
The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive
there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from
now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and
we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our
smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think
what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them
everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.
Update 6 February, 2015: Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai
that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages
long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted.
Pai claims this regulation will give "the FCC the power to micromanage
virtually every aspect of how the Internet works."
¢çCRP‚D€D~º&¶Ž¥éÃMYb²Ø§·
0k+²)ඔ5%H$HG(šf§v)ò¢êî±êÜ¢wâ‚êÚ¶*'±ëmŠx,jÑkyââ²Û(®r±éÝŠx™ë,j¢Š^Ûoê®zË_祊Ël¢¸0ŠØm…ì(Û§²æìr¸›z)í…ë.n7œ¶X§
