Net Neutrality vs. Victorian Internet, was: [XCSSA] Net Neutrality

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

All:

Excellent, soft intro to the Net Neutrality issue.  Yes, the
"plurality of voices" originally addressed by the communication
act of 1934 and others will be trashed -- for awhile -- on the 
internet by corporate, old-fashion italian fascism (i.e. big 
biz and big government walk hand-in-had over the bodies of 
the rest of us).

INTERESTING HISTORY:
This is nothing new.  Over 130 years ago, the "Victorian
Internet" -- the Telegraph -- ran thru all the same issues and
challenges, and many of the legal concepts (common carrier,
equitable access, wirefraud, "pooling" of networks into 
monopolies, etc.) were tested in the 1850s to 1900 marketplace
free of government solutions/regulatory abuses.  

The telegraph monopolies had to learn that:

-- Banning of encryption/code words (i.e. privacy over the wire), 
-- Lack of common carrier behavior (preferrential delivery of 
   wireline traffic for "good" customers), 
-- Re-writing of message traffik (1870s "pop-up" ads), 
-- Selling contents of customers messages to "partners" and
   government officials (think Ad.DoubleClick and related), 
-- Giving preference to customer traffik (no equal access),
   and "gaming" the time propagation of messages,
-- etc. 

basically did not work.  It just pissed off customers, and they 
ether went away, or got real sneaky in moving their traffik, or 
went out and built their own telegraph systems.  

CORRUPTION CONGESTION:

If there is one thing control freaks in corporations cannot
stand, it is a lack of control.  Especially of their own 
organization.  But like the un-certainty principle of physics
fame, the more control you have, the more something else has
to give (squeeze the ballon -- pops out somewhere else).

The "gaming" of the telegraph networks by the corporations 
spawned a surprising wave of corruption inside the very 
organizations that wanted to control the wires.  Buying off
telegraph operators (modern: paying a friend to open up the 
routers), tapping the wires past the corporate filter agent 
and injecting your own traffik as if legitimate (spoofing), 
etc. brought the telegraph systems to a crawl or to a stop
even for the "preferred" customers and "partners".

HOPE:
The Book "Victorian Internet" was very enlightning, and left
me with much hope w.r.t. how you technical people and the public
will eventually get real, useful, workflow enabling common 
carrier service -- even if they dont know what "common carrier"
really looks like -- they will learn they are being 
screwed by corporate fascists and their purchased congress
critters.

SOURCE:
Aim here, buy and read.  Very good background when speaking to
clients, customers and management about network issues:

http://www.amazon.com/Victorian-Internet-Tom-Standage/dp/0425171698

Authors home page:
  http://www.tomstandage.com/vicnet.html

Get busy now, and teach the corporate fascists that the economy
is sovereign (i.e. internet uses and their money will find a 
way to return themselves to the idea of "customer is king"), 
and not the un-fair monopoly laws they purchased from 
self serving law makers.

SLEEPLESS?  NEED MORE BACKGROUND?  Read this, and substitute 
"marketplace/economy" for "internet", and substitute 
"government/king" for the corporate/state fascism we see so 
prevelant today.  The section "Final Court of Appeal" is most
appropo when you make the mental substitutions:

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north82.html

The most direct section for net neutrality parallels is:

"The government can pass all the price controls it wants. 
 The free market will respond: shortages and gluts. Whenever 
 you hear of a shortage or a glut, think: "At what price?" 
 Whenever a price is established by law, the shortage or 
 glut will remain until this legislated price randomly 
 matches the free market price, at which time, there is 
 no further need for the legislated price."

Good luck fellow bandwidth shopper/explorers.  Use your
brains, and give the government/corporate fascist a dose
of their own medicine.  If the telegraph was any indicator,
the corporations will find they cannot realistically game
the internet.
Ron
===========================================================

===========================================================

Quoting xcssa-admin@xcssa.org:

> A few years ago, the old common-carrier-like Net Neutrality standards  
> that had applied to the internet from the beginning were being  
> dismantled by the FCC.  The giant telcos and cable operators  
> (including Time Warner) who provide internet access were going to be  
> allowed to become gatekeepers, to slow down, speed up, or disconnect  
> sites at their own choosing.  As happened with the railroads more  
> than a century ago, this would likely lead to each internet operator  
> to favor its own business partners, and crush everyone else.  The  
> glory days when any person with a good idea could rise to the top  
> were going to be over.
> 
> The FCC felt the outrage from citizens, and opted to let Congress  
> make the decision.
> 
> In 2006, after $175 million was spent on lobbying Congress by the  
> telcos, a new telecommunications law, the COPE Act of 2006, would  
> have shattered Net Neutrality.  But millions of net users wrote to  
> Congress, and the new law did not pass.
> 
> Now, the FCC's latest deadline for public comment on this issue is  
> June 15.
> 
> http://savetheinternet.com/
> 
> http://savetheinternet.com/=faq
> 
> Net Neutrality is not anti-business.  Virtually every business that  
> uses the net wants Net Neutrality (including Google, Amazon.com,  
> eBay,  Yahoo, etc.).  This is also internet pioneers such as Vint  
> Cerf have always wanted.  Even major newspapers want this.
> 
> It's pretty clear that if the internet providers get what they want,  
> they'll be able to hook the big fish while frying the smaller ones.   
> They'll rule the world.  As has happened with the broadcast spectrum  
> used for TV and radio.
> 
> AT&T and others have also created "astroturf" groups (like Hands Off  
> The Internet) to promote their own view, as well as to confuse and  
> confound.  They often use the word "freedom" to describe what they  
> want.  But it's freedom for them and not anyone else.
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCSSA mailing list
> XCSSA@xcssa.org
> http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
> 
>