Ask Me Help Desk - Al Gore's Interweb

Al Gore's Interweb

Hello:

There's talk afoot that the internet is going to be regulated... Should it be? If it should, what rules should be promulgated?

I've talked about the beginning of our economy BEFORE businessmen got politicians to do 'em some favors. There were no rules. The market favored nobody, but the successful. But, to BE successful, you had to PRODUCE. Sadly, some businessmen discovered, that the edge their business acumen didn't provide, bribing a politician did. And, the floodgates were opened...

I LOVED it when there were no rules... It was free. Free is good. It wasn't fair. Fair had nothing to do with it. If you wanted fair, YOU had to be aware. You couldn't rely on the government to be aware for you. Besides, once rules were being made, how do you know WHO the real beneficiary of the rules are?

Today's internet IS that rough and tumble FREE marketplace. You can buy ANYTHING. You can SEE anything. You can learn to DO anything. You can publish anything. You can communicate with anybody. You can start your own website. You can compete with the big guys from your FIRST day. And, no. It's not fair. It's free. Fair has NOTHING to do with it. If you want fair, you have to be aware. You can't rely on government. Because there are no rules, I LOVE it.

Well, that's just TOO damn free for some. They want RULES! And, they're going to get 'em, too. What kind of rules do you want?

We've got one side, the FCC, saying the rules should guarantee the internet's openness... But, it IS already open, isn't it? That's the whole idea. How can RULES insure its openness?? Seems contradictory to me. The other side wants rules that guarantee the survival of competition. But, we don't want rules to insure the survival of somebody who should fail, do we?

I don't have the answer. I like the internet the way Al Gore invented it...

excon

You are chasing an illusion Ex the internet is a place where governments are deprived of taxes, pornographers sell their wares and the unwary and ignorant are cheated and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!

Hello clete:

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...

excon

Around the mountain

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...

The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments. The way ahead with the internet as it is with all pioneering, there is a time for the homesteaders to move in and plow the land and law to replace chaos. This is how civilisation grows. That barbed wire is a nuiance isn't it

I wish the internet could return to the days of old. If I were making the rules I would send it back to the time from when it stated. Yes, I was there from the beginning. The internet was never inteded for corporate use at all. And it seems more and more places are wanting money to participate. Also giant hunks are being taken over and grabbing bandwidth more and more by pay as you go. This crap needs to stop. If they want to run those kind of services then let them have their own corporate internet and leave mine alone. Everything is slowing down and more and more its becoming a part of peoples lives. Its being over saturated. It needs to stop and some rethinking go on to where everyone can live with it.

I think a distinction has to be made between the WEB and the Internet. The Internet was originally started as a way for the US Dept of Defense to communicate with its contractors many of whom were academic institutions doing research. The academics found value in this form of communication and it blossomed. Early computer users also made it grow. But it was still a geek's world though an international one, until Tim Berners-Lee developed HTML and the WEB. And it became mainstream.

Do I think the Internet should be regulated? Beyond the regulation that currently exist (and there is some, but its mostly tech rules) no. But I do think the WEB should be regulated, but only so far as things are regulated in the "real world". For example, there HAS to be accountability. In the real world people and companies can be held accountable for their actions. In the cyber world, too often, there is no such accountability. So all the rights AND responsibilities that people have in the "real world" need to be extended to the cyber world. In my opinion no one should be able to access the WEB unless their identity can be traced. There does need to be protections and limitations as to who can do this tracing, but there needs to be that accountability. How many Ghanese women would be trying to get men to pay for them to come to the man's country for marriage, if they could be tracked to there real identity? How many Nigerians would be offering to share the accounts of some dead person if they could be tracked? How many pedophiles would try to lure young girls or boys if the could be traced?

Its unfortunate but the Web (and by extension the Net) has become a dangerous place in many ways. But there are many, many good things about the WEB that needs to be preserved as well.

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don’t even try it

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments.

Hello again, clete:

Yet, I still maintain your interest...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don't even try it

I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't think you understand the issue at hand

Hello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth??

Do I trust the GOP to protect the internet?? Given WHO they represent, NO! If there isn't ANY of you who think they don't want to give CORPORATE AMERICA an advantage, you haven't been paying attention...

Do I trust the libs to protect the internet?? No! They ALL want to make rules. In my view, it's the MAKING of rules that RESTRICTS the internet - not necessarily WHAT the rule says.

This is actually a crucial issue. Once a direction is taken, it'll go that way for the duration. If EITHER direction is taken, the internet you grew up with, will NEVER be the same.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth???

That would be charging by usage and that would be OK, since the provider still allows all bits to be equal.

Here's a good overview on net neutrality: Network Neutrality Explained

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.

Hello again, NK:

That's EXACTLY what this thread is about. I learned a lot in your link - especially that Al Gore didn't invent the internet. Cool.

So, this is a battle between ISP's and everybody else including the big corporations... Certainly, Comcast is going to want me to watch the Universal Studio movies they're going to own when they buy GE, so if they CAN, I'll bet they'd slow down Netflix.

Moby Disk agrees with me, in that NO rules = network neutrality.

excon

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

Right now it's the cable companies that are ruining the internet. Also most providers are starting to scale back on services you pay for. Its called "throttling" and they reduce your band width or interrupt your connection.

They are worried that with high speed comes new content. Just like Charter Communication has its sites on YouTube and ruining you from seeing videos.

Its sad because they are making the rules as they go.

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING !!!

I have not commented on this subject to this point because it really is too complex to deal with in a single discussion. In an ideal world that Ex envisions everything is free and open and accessible and there is no harm that comes from it. I really wish I could take that position because I really do see how authoritarian governments repress information.

On the other hand I already have expressed concern over issues like intellectual property theft ,and the compromising of national security ,the recruitment of criminal and terrorist activity.

Here in NY there is a story about a serial killer on Long Island. They are focusing on a missing women who answered a solicitation for a prostitution on Craig'slist. She is probably a victim of this serial killer.
What civilized nation can allow this type of activity under the guise of freedom ?

I'll continue to favor a balance . That is in my view part of the social contract. There would be no need for nations if there wasn't a need for protections an individual can't fully provide on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?

This has been going on much longer than Obama has been in office.

Interesting stuffs that belongs here: New UN committee could hand governments internet control ? The Register

Re :Net neutrality... if Viacom and Comcast treat internet service like they do cable television,then I am in favor of doing what is necessary to prevent it.
...
The UN is a sinister organization that has long passed it's usefulness. What is the UN 's accomplishment this year?. bringing cholera to Haiti...

And here's some added stupidity from the UK "Government": 'Porn lock' heralds death of WikiLeaks, internet, democracy, universe ? The Register

Can you say urinating into inclement weather ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This has been going on much longer than Obama has been in office.

I know, but this is Obama's FCC, I was clear about that. Net 'neutrality' is about more than tiered systems, it's about furthering a political agenda.

Quote:

Back in the 1980s, the Republican Party had the upper hand with the first computerized donor lists, "soft money" (a Reagan campaign creation), and "direct mail" operations (where Karl Rove got his start), while the left and the progressives were still relying largely on 19th century techniques such as distributing leaflets and organizing demonstrations. During the Clinton years it looked like the GOP might control the Internet when the Drudge Report dominated the 24-hour news cycle and right-wing websites had astounding "synergies" with talk radio, cable news, and whatever party line the Newt Gingrich Congress was pushing. One of the greatest achievements of Barack Obama's presidential campaign was its domination of Internet communications, which fused Netroots connectivity with Grassroots political organizing. The Huffington Post and other progressive news and information sites, along with MoveOn.org and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change.

We need to lock in this advantage.

A chunk of the Obama Administration's stimulus money is aimed at laying down Internet connections in areas that are underserved. This expansion and upgrading of the nation's Internet cable system should make it possible for millions of people to by-pass the filter of giant media corporations and access alternative information that undermines the Cheney-Rove-Fleischer revisionist narrative of the George W. Bush legacy. We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.

What's 'neutral' about locking in a progressive advantage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What's 'neutral' about locking in a progressive advantage?

Hello again, Steve:

Been listening to Glenn Beck? Since when is freedom a progressive advantage?

excon

You sometimes don't understand what you read, or your neocon-tinted agenda reads what the far-right blogs tell you've read.

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to. You really, really need to get educated about net neutrality before entering this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You sometimes don't understand what you read, or your neocon-tinted agenda reads what the far-right blogs tell you've read.

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to. You really, really need to get educated about net neutrality before entering this discussion.

You really need to stop the condescension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to.

Admittedly we almost have this now with Google and who can forget the old AOL, keywords and all ;)

So how would you like your browsing ?
Full, free and open or packaged, sanitised and censored ?

In a nut shell Net neutrality is concerned with the fair and free access for all.
Why should YOUR traffic be prioritised over mine, simply because you have purchased the Gold subscription.

True that will entitle you to faster access speeds, but not better treatment.

Think of the web as a Ford.
The standard package gives you everything you need to drive at 55 all day long, whereas the upgraded package allows you to drive at 75.

Yes you may get to where you want to go faster, but we BOTH have the same rights on the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Been listening to Glenn Beck? Since when is freedom a progressive advantage?

Nope, I've told you many times I don't watch Beck. Ever. I'm all for freedom ex, but I'm not for the FCC going beyond their authorizations. Now, read what else the left says about net 'neutrality.' Same guy, same article:

Quote:

Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start...

And while he speaks of "opening up" the media, others are clamoring for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine and people like Al Sharpton are just calling on the FCC to ban people like Rush Limbaugh.

Do you want more federal agencies out of control? I don't, and that's exactly what Obama's FCC has been trying to do. They've been trying to backdoor it in spite of the courts and Congress telling them not to do so.

Their response? Trying to turn the internet into a public utility. Now, in spite of Congress, the courts and others telling them to back off, Obama's FCC is pushing it anyway. Enough already, they need to get back in line with doing what they're authorized to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Nope, I've told you many times I don't watch Beck. Ever. I'm all for freedom ex, but I'm not for the FCC going beyond their authorizations.

Hello again, Steve:

And, I've told you that I speak only for ME - not Democrats. The Democrats want to pass laws that protect whatever the hell THEY want to protect... And, the Republicans want to pass laws that protect whomever the hell THEY want to protect...

I say, don't pass ANY laws, and protect the hell out of everybody.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You really need to stop the condescension.

Y'know every once in a while I get fed up with people knowingly spreading disinformation to further their agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Y'know every once in a while I get fed up with people knowingly spreading disinformation to further their agenda.

Me, too so stop. I furnished links to 6 different news sources in my last post, which was wrong? The fact is, none of us here want our content censored or see others get priority service... but who are we to tell corporations what to do with their property, i.e. servers and other equipment. It may be a problem for rural areas that don't have many options, but I can choose from many providers and if I don't like Comcast's policies I can go with one I like. I would much rather have that then trust the government to control the internet and place even more regulations on private property.

The fact is that there aren't many providers at all in most areas, and there is a possibility of collusion. The barrier to entry is high for any competitors.

You keep talking talking about Obama's FCC when it's the Republicans that are oppose ensuring net neutrality:After GOP Kills Net Neutrality Bill, Focus Shifts Back to FCC - DailyFinance

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You keep talking talking about Obama's FCC when it's the Republicans that are oppose ensuring net neutrality:After GOP Kills Net Neutrality Bill, Focus Shifts Back to FCC - DailyFinance

In other words, you've been telling me I don't know what I'm talking about but you haven't actually read what I said.

Try one more time, starting with this from your link:

Quote:

the FCC, which has been caught in jurisdictional limbo ever since a federal judge ruled in April that the agency lacked the authority to enforce net neutrality

What part of Obama's FCC doesn't have the authority to enact net neutrality don't you get?

Yea I got that steve. I simply mentioned that the net neutrality issue is older than Obama's office. You started getting it wrong here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2638573-post22.html

What the FCC is trying to do is to preserve the status quo, not "a government grab to takeover the internet" like the right-wing pundits keep saying.
Once again: it's not to enact net neutrality, it's to preserve it.

You made an assumption, NK. In that very link I said "I know" it's been going on longer than Obama. I said nothing about "a government grab to takeover the internet" either.

All right.

Cheers.

Which is more than I can say for cable service which is, at least in my area ,run like a utility with the backing of the local government .

There are still some viable alternative to Google so I don't think it is comparable yet. I think the size of Google reflects consumer preferences . I generally use Bing .

I always thought the better alternative is for the information provider to charge subscription for access. The reason people use the net for their news and print is dying in part is related to the fact that I have to pay for my daily hard copy of the NY Slimes but can access it free of charge on the Web.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

. The reason people use the net for their news and print is dying in part is related to the fact that I have to pay for my daily hard copy of the NY Slimes but can access it free of charge on the Web.

Don't quite understand what you said there Tom but what is wrong with getting the news free. There are any number who rush to provide this service so that they can gain advertising revenue, which after all far outweighs the revenue from selling pieces of paper. Become environmentally friendly and stop giving them an excuse for cutting down trees. I did years ago and I haven't missed the ads

Did you not pay for print copy ? Why should you expect to get content for free ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

did you not pay for print copy ? Why should you expect to get content for free ?

I don't expect anything but I take what is on offer, so if web content is free... it is free. One financial paper here decided to make web access subcriber access only, as the same information is available free elsewhere from any number of sources, I didn't sign up.

The market determines the price and the price is free, capitalism in action. Why should a traditional newspaper expect me to pay because they are slow to realise times have changed. It is like cable offering me what I can get for free, not well thought out.

Not sure where I come down on Net regulation. But I do come down strongly against a government takeover of the web without the authority coming from the legislature.

Unfortunately that is exactly what happened yesterday when the Obama FCC ;without the authority of Congress ,voted themselves new unconstitutional powers to control the internet.

It is up to the next session of Congress to smack the FCC down. Regulatory authority comes from Congress.