You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.
As the fight over net neutrality heats up, we can probably expect to see more things like this.
James Pethokouikis penned a column against NN that takes a few specious logical and factual leaps. This being a critique of something people on the internet enjoy, you can imagine the comments.
Let’s take a second to explain net neutrality. Here’s a quote from Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu:
“Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.”
Google benefits from a neutral network, here is their public policy blog on the topic.
Basically, NN is what most of us have now with our internet service. All data is treated equally and sent to you at the highest rate you can access for your service. YouTube may load faster if you have a super-fast connection, but your ISP can’t make it load slower if you don’t have the “gold package.”
So it doesn’t matter where your data comes from or goes to, it goes as fast as you can send and receive it. Comcast as already taken some heat for slowing down peer-to-peer (p2p) traffic on their networks, making internet service kind of like phone service. You pay overages and fees to call certain numbers on your land land line, and you could pay more to access certain sites and data. Or, an ISP could block certain data (gambling sites, p2p, etc) for all but the highest-tier customers.
There are many more complex parts to net neutrality, but this is a piece of the core of the argument in the Reuters article linked above.
The FCC is moving to ensure NN, and the issue has largely become a party/ideology-line issue. Conservatives say the government shouldn’t meddle in service providers’ business. They say (despite whatever Comcast does) that ISPs have no plans to filter traffic and that sites like YouTube, Google and Yahoo are hogging the bandwith and stifling innovation. They also say that some web traffic (p2p mostly) is used to trade illegal content and should be controlled. They say NN is too much government regulation. (I think Glenn Beck called it socialism). Basically, they say companies that provide service to the internet aren’t controlling the internet, they’re just controlling their service, which happens to be access to the internet.
The biggest argument in favor of NN is that we already have it, basically. Innovative enterprises like Google (and everything else on the internet) thrived under a neutral system. Furthermore, proponents say corporations should not have a say in what we access online.
But is it corporate censorship? Verizon and Comcast pay to upgrade and maintain their infrastructure and it takes a lot of infrastructure to bring people the rich, high-file-sized content that makes the internet so great. If these companies want to limit bandwith to customers, should they be allowed to do so?
Should they be allowed to do so even if they have ulterior motives? If internet video is hurting cable subscriptions, Comcast or Insight could limit video speeds over its network to encourage more cable subscribers. It’s expensive to transfer data, and perhaps the companies want to save money. Is this a predatory practice?
To continue this debate, we also have to think about how we view the internet. Here in Louisville, we have two options for high speed internet–DSL or cable. (You could say we have three if you count cellular broadband.) Opponents of NN say that if one company does something unscrupulous with their network, customers can switch providers. But that argument doesn’t hold up everywhere. What if both companies throttle the network dishonestly? What if you live in rural America and only have one option for broadband? How do you access the internet without limits or restrictions on your browsing?
The options don’t really exist in enough places to say there’s reasonable competition for broadband in America. Because it costs so much to lay cable, it doesn’t behoove an upstart to lay its own cable where someone else’s cable has already been laid. Companies could use wireless transmitters, but filling up public airwaves requires more regulatory finagling.
So if companies pay to lay and maintain infrastructure, should they decide how that infrastructure is used? An electric company can’t block you from using power to run your toaster, but they also charge you more if you run your toaster all day. A water company couldn’t give you unfiltered water if you’re not a gold-level customer, but there are penalties for leaving the tub running. (Of course, there are government rules for how the water is filtered)
All this assumes the internet is a utility. Is it? Has the access to information and communication become so essential in modern life that it’s on par with power, water and roads? The answer to this is maybe, but it will be yes in the future. There are a few anti web holdouts now (how many people still say, “I don’t have e-mail” proudly?), but in 20 years there will be dramatically fewer. You can barely apply for a part-time job without internet access, and not everyone can get to a library to use a computer for free.
But broadband data isn’t paid for like water or power. You pay for the speed, not the data. Instead of buying 500 gigs of data transfer a month, you buy the ability to download those 500 gigs at 10 megabytes per second…for example.
So should we maybe look at the internet the way we look at roads? You have toll roads in some places and you pay taxes for maintenance and you can’t drive too fast, but no one is charging you more to drive to one grocery store than another. You might have to pay for parking, but your town probably has more than two grocery stores. But the vast majority of roads are run by the government.
So what’s the solution? Should we keep the internet the way it is or give more control to providers? There are consequences either way, for consumers or providers.
Maybe the answer is a public internet utility. I know that some folks will cry “Socialism” at this concept, and I’m not endorsing any concepts or ideas, but some ISPs right here in Kentucky are thinking of doing just this on a municipal level. Those providers say the government (city, county, federal, etc) could provide a basic level of access and speed for a basic price. The feds come in at a disadvantage because they lack infrastructure. This gives private companies time to compete. They can step up their service and offer faster speeds. They can offer better package deals for phone and TV with your internet.
With a public web utility, the problems of price-gouging and poor access in rural areas are solved, according to public web proponents. And once folks get online, they’re going to want to get online faster, so ideally the public utility would create a market for higher-level private service. Also, neutrality wouldn’t have to be enforced on private networks. If customers don’t like what they’re getting with Comcast or Verizon, they have a neutral option to try out. Maybe it won’t be better.
Those are just a few arguments. I’m trying to present them fairly here and I have no idea what I personally believe. There are a million metaphors to make for net neutrality and broadband deployment, and none of them are good, not even the ones I’ve posted here. The fact is that this is a big 21st Century issue that needs a big 21st Century resolution.
What are your thoughts?
I’m in the studio working with the pledge drive. Julie Kredens and Kristin Espeland Gourlay are on the air, but not in the studio right now.
350 parts per million, to be exact. That’s the level scientists tell us carbon dioxide should return to in order to avoid irreversible damage from global warming. The trouble is, we’re already well above that, at 390 ppm. And we’re adding to that concentration every year, mostly from burning fossil fuels.
Scientists tell us it’s physically possible to return to 350 ppm, but politically, well, we don’t know. The mood is already disheartened, and expectations low, as we approach the most important international climate talks in years: Copenhagen, in December. First world nations may not want to agree to any kind of substantial greenhouse gas reductions, and third world nations will be pressing their richer cousins to help pay for any reduction technologies.
Still, you’ve got a chance to send a message to the powers that be, if you’re in favor of serious efforts to achieve the 350 ppm goal. This Saturday afternoon, the Louisville 350 Coalition is holding a climate change rally on the Great Lawn. Cross your fingers it doesn’t rain, because part of the agenda includes everyone lying down to form the numbers 3-5-0 to be visible from above.
It’s part of a world wide day of climate change events, begun by environmental author Bill McKibben.
This post comes to us from WFPL environmental reporter Kristin Espeland Gourlay
350 parts per million, to be exact. That’s the level scientists tell us carbon dioxide should return to in order to avoid irreversible damage from global warming. The trouble is, we’re already well above that, at 390 ppm. And we’re adding to that concentration every year, mostly from burning fossil fuels.
Scientists tell us it’s physically possible to return to 350 ppm, but politically, well, we don’t know. The mood is already disheartened, and expectations low, as we approach the most important international climate talks in years: Copenhagen, in December. First world nations may not want to agree to any kind of substantial greenhouse gas reductions, and third world nations will be pressing their richer cousins to help pay for any reduction technologies.
Still, you’ve got a chance to send a message to the powers that be, if you’re in favor of serious efforts to achieve the 350 ppm goal. This Saturday afternoon, the Louisville 350 Coalition is holding a climate change rally on the Great Lawn. Cross your fingers it doesn’t rain, because part of the agenda includes everyone lying down to form the numbers 3-5-0 to be visible from above.
It’s part of a world wide day of climate change events, begun by environmental author Bill McKibben.
We’ve talked about what Joseph Main’s position at the head of MSHA could mean for mine safety, and now we’ll find out. From the AP:
The Senate has confirmed former United Mine Workers union official Joseph Main to head the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration.
The chamber confirmed Main by unanimous consent on Wednesday evening to run the agency responsible for overseeing the health and safety of the nation’s 392,000 miners.
Main spent 22 years heading the United Mine Workers’ Occupational Health and Safety Department before retiring. His nomination had been praised by union activists, but greeted with some trepidation by coal companies.
Main was a strong critic of the previous head of MSHA, Richard Stickler.
I’m in the studio with the excellent Stan Cook. Please pledge.
Wendy Macy is at it again. The rabid Randite has a Q&A with her favorite candidate about mountaintop removal. In the video, Paul says there’s a lack of flat surfaces in Eastern Kentucky for schools, development and elk. (Because elk apparently cannot survive in nature without human intervention). So, removing the pointy parts of mountains makes room for nature and schools. This is a point he seems to agree with Democratic Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo on. Mongiardo reportedly said it’s not mountaintop removal, but mountaintop development.
You can see Paul chat with Macy in the video below. They are in different areas, which makes me wonder if Paul didn’t just shoot this without Macy anywhere in sight. Are they in cahoots since her “This Rand is Your Rand” video got the campaign’s attention?
Also, watch for the part when Rand Paul checks for contaminants in water by touching it with his hands.
Now that he’s raising money, everyone is talking about Rand Paul. Even Joseph Gerth, who wonders if Paul can win the Senate race.
So it is yet to be seen if Paul, whose quirky father has established a foothold somewhere between the mainstream Republican and Libertarian parties, can have the sort of mass appeal needed to win a U.S. Senate race in Kentucky.
Paul’s father, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is a strong states’ rights advocate who wants the federal government out of people’s lives. He opposes federal drug laws and says the U.S. government should not outlaw gay marriage because only churches should be in the marriage business.
During a conference call Friday, Rand Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist, talked around some of those questions and others, perhaps signaling that he knows his positions on such issues might be a tough sell to Kentucky Republicans.
He prefers to talk about fiscal issues, allowing him to ride a populist wave that erupted after the nation’s economy went bust, prompting federal bailouts.
Spencer County is no longer dry. A measure to allow alcohol sales passed by more than 800 votes, and residents are happy.
From the C-J:
“I think it’s a good thing for the community,” said Brian Helm, president of the Spencer County Business Association. “I think it’s a step in the right direction. Baby steps are what it’s going to take to grow economically.”
Helm said he was surprised at the margin by which the measure passed, as was Patrick Nix, pastor at Lighthouse Baptist Church in Spencer County and a representative of the Spencer County Ministerial Association.
Nix said he was disappointed by the vote, and feared the impact alcohol sales would have on the community.
“Of course I’m concerned for the families it affects, making it more available,” he said. “It will no doubt make it more available to the youth, it’ll make it more available for drivers and boaters, so I’m just concerned about the safety.”
Sherriff Steve Coulter said he didn’t expect any additional problems in the county with alcohol sales, but said “time will tell.”
Coulter said that, from speaking with law enforcement in wet counties, some agencies actually experienced a decrease in drunken driving after a county turned wet.
And in other news, Rick Redding has a post of vice-themed current events.
