 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Why they would want to do such things is explained with hand-wavy responses and hyperbole. Attempting to get a net neutrality proponent to give a concise definition or rational argument to support the fear-mongering is like pulling teeth with a set of rusty pliers.
This is another case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'll send the author a challenge. We will see if the rusty pliers work.
In this age the 'talking heads' have to open a channel to all challengers because their censorship of challengers will be easily seen for what it is - exactly.
Censorship of fact is not ignorance. Claiming to be ignorant when exposed to fact is falsehood, lies, fraud, crime, and stupidity.
Net Neutrality is a term used to describe an issue whereby people are combining power to defeat people who are combining power.
On side A are the people combining power to gain control of the medium of exchange that is now popularly known as "The Internet".
On side B are the people combining power to gain control of the same power.
The difference between side A and side B is a principle.
Side A wants to use their power to transfer purchasing power (wealth) from those who create it to those who have the power to gain control (and maintain control) of the medium of exchange that is now popularly known as "The Internet".
Side B wants to use their power to defend against Side A.
Now let's inspect some of the data being injected into the current debate on this issue to see if the data comes from side A or B.
NN proponents are quite certain that at any moment AT&T, "Southwestern Bell", AOL, and any number of ISPs and bandwidth providers, are going to suddenly start preventing their customers from visiting sites or accessing services. Why they would want to do such things is explained with hand-wavy responses and hyperbole.
The above data is ignorant only if the person creating the above actually doesn't know why Side B is concerned about this issue. If the person above does know why Side B is concerned about this issue, then, the person is lying, misrepresenting, falsifying, and discrediting anyone on side B with the above falsehood.
At this moment in time there exists a number of competitors on our planet that focus their time and energy toward gaining greater market share in the business of connecting people through a medium of exchange that is now popularly called: The Internet.
The competitor who gains more market share can divide the costs of providing access to The Internet to a larger number of customers.
Example:
Internet provider A has one customer
Internet provider B has 6 billion customers
Internet provider A must charge all costs to one customer.
Internet provider B divides all costs by 6 billion.
If internet provider A wishes to upgrade to fiber optics, then, internet provider A must charge all costs of that upgrade to the one customer.
If internet provider B wishes to upgrade to fiber optics, then, internet provider B must charge all costs by 6 billion.
My example intends to illustrate three things:
Division of labor
Specialization
Economies of Scale
If you are incapable of understanding how those three things work, then, you may be fooled by people on either side of this issue.
Currently, at this time, and into the future, The Internet is a battle ground for competition between internet providers seeking a larger portion of Market Share because a larger portion of Market Share is POWERFUL.
The costs can be divided by a larger number of customers. The provider with a larger market share has more POWER.
The provider with a larger market share can utilize greater power to gain more power over the provider with lower market share (less customers adding to PURCHASING POWER).
There are two main investment possibilities available for any competitor in The Internet provider business.
A. Reduce costs (for the same or better service)
B. Invest in political power
Choice A will easily be seen as The internet becomes less expensive, faster, more efficient, and more powerful as a tool used by individuals who have immediate control over their ability to transfer data with anyone, anywhere, on the Planet Earth (without the slightest difficulty).
Choice B will easily be seen as The Internet becomes restricted, censored, costly, dumbed down, 'legalized', regulated, infringed upon, choked off, stifled, 'licensed', 'registered', and a host of other obvious changes to The Internet that does not exist or did not exist when The Internet first became The Internet
The issue of Net Neutrality is a fight between forces A and forces B. If the future brings a world where Net Neutrality is no longer an issue, then, there are two possible reasons for this to happen.
A. The cost of access to communicate with anyone anywhere on the planet has reached a practical zero. Anyone at any time can instantly communicate with anyone anywhere on the planet for practically no cost whatsoever (beyond a simple universal fee). Anyone can transfer any data intact to anyone else on the planet without any interference from anyone anywhere.
B. The cost of access to communicate with anyone anywhere on the planet is so high that only those having political power have this power to communicate with anyone anywhere on the planet.
Those people who represent side A want no part of political power beyond the power required to defend against side B.
If you still do not understand the Net Neutrality Issue after reading the words above, then, you can ask questions and you can Google the Issue in an effort to gain the power of knowledge because, now, The Internet isn't destroyed (yet) by the forces of side B.
I'll send the challenge to the author of the link above and see what happens (while I read the rest of his 'article').
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=339&forum_id=6&jump_to=1100
Robert Fisk,
You have been challenged.
Joe
Sent at 12:00 PM my time Friday, July 30, 2007
Back to Fisk:
Net Neutrality proponents want us to believe that in spite of market forces dictating that content and destination restrictions are not good for business, they will one day defy all logic and start engaging in the practice.
A Straw Man argument can be seen easily. The creator of the Straw Man can't quote from his creation. The creator of the Straw-Man, like a ventriloquist, is the voice of the Straw-Man.
The concern is either A or B.
A. Political control over the Internet where political power enforces costs upon people who utilize The Internet.
B. Political control over the Internet where no one enforces any political control over The Internet - with one exception - no one can enforce political control upon The Internet - no one.
My guess is that Robert Fisk has imagined a third choice:
C. No political power exists on the Planet Earth.
He can explain his perspective at will. I sent him a challenge.
I have to agree with the perspective that Net Neutrality is a dead issue because the enforcement of political power upon The Internet is all but impossible; however - it is all but impossible to imagine how political power can become so powerful as change the meaning of the word 'democracy' from 'universality' into 'torture and mass murder'.
Example:
The United States is spreading democracy in Iraq.
This issue comes down to a very basic battle between falsehood and reality.
If The Internet allows Iraqi victims of 'democracy spreading' to send data to the rest of the world without censorship, then, reality will win.
I think reality will win.
I think Robert Fisk is right when his perspective communicates how The Internet will win against politics. I do not share any perspective that apologizes for torturing mass murderers hiding behind "limited liability Corporation" legal extortion.
When the Market Share reaches an economy of scale where purchasing power reaches a capacity to utilize political power, then, there is room for concern and that, if I am not mistaken, is the concern raised in the issued called Net Neutrality.
Side A does not want any political power forced into The Internet - at all.
How can political power be kept out of The Internet?
If the answer is "don't worry about it", then, I suspect that the answer is a political falsehood.
In America there are plenty of indicators pointing toward an increase in Political Power being injected into The Internet and this can be seen simply.
What is the minimum cost in America required to gain access to The Internet?
What is the quality of internet access in America (net speed)?
If American costs are higher and the quality of connection is lower compared to any other country, then, that measures, easily and precisely, the level of influence exerted by people utilizing political power upon The Internet.
Even if the country compared to America is one where people are taxed and The Internet is subsidized, even so, the cost per individual and the quality of the connection will measure total political power forced into The Internet. The higher the level of Political Force the higher will be the individual costs and the lower will be the quality of the connection to The Internet.
Net Neutrality is an issue because costs are higher where there is no reason for them to be higher and quality is lower when there is no reason for quality to be lower. The real reason is the influence of political power explaining, causing, affecting, the costs and the quality of The Internet upon each individual utilizing The Internet.
When costs and quality reach their universal limits for everyone, then, that current event will signal the elimination of political power.
When costs increase to a level where only the politically powerful have access to The Internet, then, that current event will signal domination by political power.
Is that not simple?
Time Warner/AOL owns the equipment and network they've built.
Robert Fisk is spreading falsehood. He may be ignorant of this fact. "Time Warner/AOL" is a political entity known as a 'limited liability' corporation. "Time Warner/AOL" cannot "own" anything. People "own". As a matter of convenience the group of people 'owning' something can be grouped into one group and described as one group and the one group can 'share' ownership of one thing or many things.
Does Robert Fisk intend to apologize for all the injuries caused by the people 'owning' "Time Warner/AOL"?
How many injuries were caused by the people ‘owning’ “Time Warner/AOL” as those people spread falsehood directly leading to torture and mass murder in Iraq?
Last edited on Fri Jul 20th, 2007 04:23 pm by Joe Kelley