Comments on: The wrong way to spread broadband
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren warns that corporate favoritism could put long-held Internet freedoms at risk.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Inside the Apple, er, Microsoft Store
December 1, 2009 4:00 AM PST
- Man loses job after searching too hard for aliens
November 30, 2009 7:42 PM PST
- Google hosts energy experts amid climate talks
November 30, 2009 6:01 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
However, at the same time, there have been several initiatives to provide broadband to more and more people: via DSL, via cable, via satellite, and maybe soon over wireless. (I'm personally interested in the last of these, because it would connect rural America to the 'Net more readily.)
Where is the praise for these entrepreneurs?
Now, with all of these options, and more on the way (I've heard of BPL, and cases for and against it), it looks like there will be a broad market for broadband. Why regulate net neutrality when you can choose an ISP with the good sense to be net neutral to begin with?
And if we're forced to regulate, why handle it at the federal level? Why shouldn't the states regulate ISPs if we're gonna put our hands on the Internet?
As to regulating net neutrality, this is the backbone infrastructure they want to regulate, no ISP would be able to get around it. Almost all ISP's use the telco/cable backbones, so if they can change it, it will change for almost everyone.
As to why the states can't regulate it, that is much more simple. 50 different laws to abide by would severly limit smaller players from getting started. Imagine if Google would have had to comply with 30 different state laws when they started...the idea is disenheartening at best.
The telecommunications act of 1996 made sure the telco's didn't have to worry about that and it is what helped them to do what they have done, which is far less than they were expected/promised to do.
However, at the same time, there have been several initiatives to provide broadband to more and more people: via DSL, via cable, via satellite, and maybe soon over wireless. (I'm personally interested in the last of these, because it would connect rural America to the 'Net more readily.)
Where is the praise for these entrepreneurs?
Now, with all of these options, and more on the way (I've heard of BPL, and cases for and against it), it looks like there will be a broad market for broadband. Why regulate net neutrality when you can choose an ISP with the good sense to be net neutral to begin with?
And if we're forced to regulate, why handle it at the federal level? Why shouldn't the states regulate ISPs if we're gonna put our hands on the Internet?
As to regulating net neutrality, this is the backbone infrastructure they want to regulate, no ISP would be able to get around it. Almost all ISP's use the telco/cable backbones, so if they can change it, it will change for almost everyone.
As to why the states can't regulate it, that is much more simple. 50 different laws to abide by would severly limit smaller players from getting started. Imagine if Google would have had to comply with 30 different state laws when they started...the idea is disenheartening at best.
The telecommunications act of 1996 made sure the telco's didn't have to worry about that and it is what helped them to do what they have done, which is far less than they were expected/promised to do.
Microsoft has charged every step of the way since commandeering DOS and it hasn't seemed to hurt them one bit. In fact they and 99.999% of the rest of the world believe it's what has made them so successful.
First it depends on how you define success. For modern capitalism, success depends on the growth of their organization and its profitability.
In this article you define success as the biggest increase in the greater common good. I would define success that way too, but our present worldwide culture is not yet so broadminded. We generally don't see ourselves as parts of a larger organism.
In my opinion Microsoft is a failure. They have missed countless opportunities to help the world in general. If they had left some more scraps on the competitive table they could have spurred countless new companies to start. Instead they sterilized the ground so very few seeds could even germinate. This helped them own everything, but the overall pie would have been larger if they had helped companies to start and grow under Microsoft's wings.
Microsoft could have been even more successful, if they weren't so selfish and short-sighted.
Today's world, today's society, and today's government all miss this "greater good" perspective. Until we understand it, the world will continue to be littered with obstacles to maximum advancement for all people.
Eventually we will learn. We will all tire of the concentration of wealth and power, and the subsequent abuses it engenders.
As it says in the Old Testament, "leave the corners of your fields unharvested" for the poor and the stranger. Also "leave any grains that fall to the ground during the harvest".
These instructions aren't just dumb charity designed to help the poor before welfare existed. They are immensely wise. Leaving some of your prosperity for others is ultimately an extremely enlightened act. It is enlightened selfishness.
Maximum efficiency requires inefficiency.
Perfection requires imperfection.
Maximum personal gain comes from sharing, not from keeping everything to yourself.
Microsoft has charged every step of the way since commandeering DOS and it hasn't seemed to hurt them one bit. In fact they and 99.999% of the rest of the world believe it's what has made them so successful.
First it depends on how you define success. For modern capitalism, success depends on the growth of their organization and its profitability.
In this article you define success as the biggest increase in the greater common good. I would define success that way too, but our present worldwide culture is not yet so broadminded. We generally don't see ourselves as parts of a larger organism.
In my opinion Microsoft is a failure. They have missed countless opportunities to help the world in general. If they had left some more scraps on the competitive table they could have spurred countless new companies to start. Instead they sterilized the ground so very few seeds could even germinate. This helped them own everything, but the overall pie would have been larger if they had helped companies to start and grow under Microsoft's wings.
Microsoft could have been even more successful, if they weren't so selfish and short-sighted.
Today's world, today's society, and today's government all miss this "greater good" perspective. Until we understand it, the world will continue to be littered with obstacles to maximum advancement for all people.
Eventually we will learn. We will all tire of the concentration of wealth and power, and the subsequent abuses it engenders.
As it says in the Old Testament, "leave the corners of your fields unharvested" for the poor and the stranger. Also "leave any grains that fall to the ground during the harvest".
These instructions aren't just dumb charity designed to help the poor before welfare existed. They are immensely wise. Leaving some of your prosperity for others is ultimately an extremely enlightened act. It is enlightened selfishness.
Maximum efficiency requires inefficiency.
Perfection requires imperfection.
Maximum personal gain comes from sharing, not from keeping everything to yourself.
We do not want to change the internet and let fall into the wrong hands, and zoe stands for the freedom of the internet. If net neutrality were to be imposed not only do we start paying for things which we now already pay for, we would lose a lot of the communication we now have. Would be like a firewall blocking our way to information which we might be trying seek, along with people who develop and work on projects like they do now because they would become stagnant and this would cause the internet to become stagnant per say. People have been designing and developing projects for years, and now that it has become what it is today, some corporations and govt. entities have decided that this looks as good as apple pie to them and they want their slice. They did not put this innovation which we like and use each and everyday, out here themselves, but they seem to think for some odd reason that they should control it. Most of them don't even have a clue as how it works. Wonder how they would like it if by chance they did gain control and then all the people who have brought it together, just walked out on them. How they gonna fix it? They don't have a clue as to how to do that. So they shouldn't be trying to control things they do not understand. They should be most grateful that they are part of it, and proud to be part of something that has changed communication in the world, instead of trying to get greedy and control that which is not theirs to control. I think these people who are trying it should be banned from the internet, and give those jobs that they have to people who understand what it is all about!
Zoe please stay with it. We need people such as you.
- WTG ZOE!
- by Eskiegirl302 May 5, 2006 9:35 AM PDT
- This is one congresswoman who definitly knows her stuff where net neutrality is concerned. She gets my vote!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)We do not want to change the internet and let fall into the wrong hands, and zoe stands for the freedom of the internet. If net neutrality were to be imposed not only do we start paying for things which we now already pay for, we would lose a lot of the communication we now have. Would be like a firewall blocking our way to information which we might be trying seek, along with people who develop and work on projects like they do now because they would become stagnant and this would cause the internet to become stagnant per say. People have been designing and developing projects for years, and now that it has become what it is today, some corporations and govt. entities have decided that this looks as good as apple pie to them and they want their slice. They did not put this innovation which we like and use each and everyday, out here themselves, but they seem to think for some odd reason that they should control it. Most of them don't even have a clue as how it works. Wonder how they would like it if by chance they did gain control and then all the people who have brought it together, just walked out on them. How they gonna fix it? They don't have a clue as to how to do that. So they shouldn't be trying to control things they do not understand. They should be most grateful that they are part of it, and proud to be part of something that has changed communication in the world, instead of trying to get greedy and control that which is not theirs to control. I think these people who are trying it should be banned from the internet, and give those jobs that they have to people who understand what it is all about!
Zoe please stay with it. We need people such as you.