Category Archives: Politics

The Constant Hum of Net-Neutrality?

I’m reading a lot of the “voices of reason”, telling us their hope for a brighter, better, fairer, more economical, world-wide-web is through FCC regulation. If only we do this one little thing, ask our representative’s for more regulation. As a matter of principle, and all that is net-holy, we need to demand more regulations, we have to get more bureaucrats to control this nightmare of an Internet that soon can befall us, without extensive government guidance.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, they should be obligated to demonstrate their claim is real.

cartoon-people-clappingNet neutrality The common perception of net neutrality is positive. It’s supposed to require Internet service providers to treat all on-line content the same. They can’t deliberately speed up or slow down traffic from specific websites, block sites, or applications, nor can they put their own content at an advantage over rivals.

The claim “The elimination of the FCC enforcing net neutrality will give big cable companies control over what we see and do on-line. If corporations get their way, they’ll allow widespread throttling, blocking, censorship, and extra fees.”

Net neutrality advocates portray a problem, then without proper examination of facts, they want the government to control the Internet. Their proposals lack the essential explanations of, over what time period a remedy should occur, the cost, or how their regulations are going to monitor and insure the problem(s) were fixed.

Meanwhile a host of complaints, which almost any service provider routinely responds, are cited as hypothetical problematic issues.  Except where criminal conduct has been involved, there are no examples of any Internet-service provider preventing its customers from viewing content on-line. Comcast attempted to “throttle” or slow down access to certain data packets a decade ago; they were blasted in the court of public opinion and soon relented.

beware-false-claims-2There’s an illusion that somehow government can control enterprise better than individual companies. Nowhere can such a claim be demonstrated by facts, yet many persist we need more, not less government intervention. There’s a disconnect on how speeds and feeds would be monitored for each type of Internet application and entertainment source.

Having been involved with data communications over 30 years and responsible for managing the speed as well as the perceptions of individual users, complaints are the daily norm. In many instances a problem stems from user perceptions, equipment malfunction, and purposeful attacks on companies and infrastructure through clever hacking.

One of the frequent claims by those advocating net neutrality are that service providers will raise rates without government regulation. I know for reasonable certainty two things will occur in regard to pricing.

  •  price increases and advertisement revenue claw back is already in the works.
  •  regulations, monitoring, and compliance with increased government regulations most certainly will increase the cost to the consumer.

Google has an 88 percent share of the search-engine market. Facebook has a 77 percent share of mobile social media. Amazon, controls 70 percent of e-book sales, how would government effectively manage their access and cost to use with additional regulation?

If anything, net neutrality is a lose-lose scenario. Access that we take for granted would invariably be slower because providers would have to be increasingly watchful of data flow. Throttling techniques, (packet shaping) would be necessitated. Costs to the end-user would increase.

Summary

The Internet is made up of billions of users, millions of individual pieces of equipment, passed through complex routing by thousands of companies. We’ve seen exponential growth since 1994. Video tape rentals were the usual source for on demand entertainment. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and even Google were created during this period. The flexibility, adaptability, and skills required to meet this growth were all done without government supervision. You can almost guarantee if the government had been supervising, we would be still using ISDN or dial-up, waiting for connection, and certainly not getting video on demand.

“When I took office, only high energy physicists
had ever heard of what is called the World Wide
Web… Now even my cat has its own page.”
Bill Clinton

_________________________________________

Advertisements

Why the Net Isn’t Neutral

server rackI understand, you want things to be fair. You’re all about fair play and equality. You’re even willing to wear a silly hat and carry a sign if necessary in the name of fairness. I get it and respect that.

When I read many posts making claims about net neutrality, I realize the masses can be so readily manipulated. It’s one of the reasons I’m glad I’ve learned to be more skeptical and willing to dig for information. It’s because so few people are willing and able to dig in for themselves, preferring to accept the most frequent regurgitations as fact.

No matter how many times I’ve neutralized the arguments about net neutrality, even some people who I regard as highly intelligent, accept the following as fact.

Without net neutrality we will lose these benefits:
(these claims are false but many believe it to be true)

  • education on-line
  • employment opportunities
  • social media access
  • on-line shopping
  • ticket buying
  • cat videos
  • our favorite porn
  • explosive or chemical devices (see this link)

Before 2015, there were no legal protections requiring net neutrality. Before 2015 Internet providers could charge different prices for different speeds. You wanted faster Internet, you paid a higher price. After 2015, when “net neutrality” laws were passed, Internet service providers are able to charge tier level prices. Faster Internet = higher pricing. Notice any difference before 2015 and after? There isn’t any.

Let me explain it another way. The whole idea behind net neutrality, is to keep data flowing freely. You want to be able to watch those on demand cat videos and Internet porn, or your favorite net-fix video. You believe it’s your right, but it really bothers you that a company has the audacity to charge you more if you use more data. How dare they!

If the objectives of the law were to insure we receive services on an equal basis, then why is it other “utilities” charge more for their services? Water companies charge more for greater consumption. Electric companies charge more for additional capacity & usage. What are we asking for data services that differs from other utilities?

If Internet service slows or is completely off-line, I call the provider. The problem is identified and the issue is resolved. Municipalities (local government), created a localized monopoly when they chose a single provider for a specified geographic area. This eliminated a market aspect of control and correction through competition. Rates and services improve with competition. Politicians with government regulations created the problems. They later identify & amplify the problems they started, and promote their willingness to fix if only we would elect them.

Dianne Feinstein speaking

To put it succinctly, if the government were to be put in charge of a desert, there would be a shortage of sand in a few years.


 

Why Do We Need Guns?

Statute of Liberty There have been several horrific events which have brought out the worst of humanity to take advantage of people gathered to either worship or enjoy themselves. Most, if not all, if my memory serves me, were perpetrated in designated safe zones. This is the hallmark of people who are predators.

The person attacking anyone with deadly intent is an angry and aggressive psychopath with no sense of the moral dimension of their crime. Their internal logic is different from yours.

Those thwarted in some criminal enterprise for profit, who use firearms to get gain, may recognize the error of their ways and stop. Those driven by compulsion won’t stop. You need a good tool to save you. Whether that tool is a firearm which you’ve been trained to use, or a baseball bat, the result needs to be the same. That psychopath needs to be stopped or the carnage will continue.

The second amendment was a recognition of human behavior in all its forms, both good and bad. It’s not there because, oh by the way, we may want to hunt, go to sporting events, or collect interesting mechanisms. It was written as an inherent right of every free person to defend themselves or their property.

Just as important as it is to be able to speak freely, gather together in common purpose, prevent unjustifiable search, arrest & property seizure, worship how we may choose; self-protection is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Without it, the other civil liberties can’t be guaranteed.

Eventually, without a second amendment, a greater form of tyranny emerges, and there’s no way to readily restore prior conditions. To keep pace with these real and constant threats, the law abiding citizen must be able to continue to legally possess and use the latest in weapons technology.

It’s not about sports, militias, parades, or historic relics of the past. It’s about each one of us being able to defend & protect against any aggressor, no matter their size, shape, or societal status with weaponry capable of matching that challenge.

Societies protect themselves, and so too should any free individual person, unless we accept our fate to the whims of criminals, and the providential timing of a benevolent government appointed employee.

Freedom comes at a price purchased by the observant, able to work, and willing to sacrifice for it.

George Orwell seeing in front of our nose