Pilant's Business Ethics

Business Ethics Blog

Tag: Net Neutrality (Page 2 of 4)

Net Neutrality: Who Should We Be Most Afraid Of? (via Rebecca Reynolds)

Excellent article on net neutrality. Thoughtful and intelligent. We need more like it.

She asks the important questions. What values are at stake here? What are our choices? But she ties all this in with some history of the developing media of the last fifty years.

Good writing. Please go and have a look.

James Pilant

Net Neutrality: Who Should We Be Most Afraid Of? The idea of open, accessible, unmoderated forums for discourse and exchange inspires me. Afterall, that is what I do for a living: I design processes that enable many people to engage in collaborative decision-making. That technology could push this process open even further, to many more people, to a borderless conversation, a churning think tank for innovation is a possibility I dream of. For this reason, I have been an increasing proponent of … Read More

via Rebecca Reynolds

A Scary Thought (via kevinwutd)

This guy has it exactly right.

This is what is at stake in the struggle for net neutrality – Corporate profit or General access.

James Pilant

I recently watched a video on net neutrality and it scared me. The idea that major corporations may be able to control what we do with the internet is devastating to even think about. I love money, and I love power, but I think that if the cost for those things was to ruin the internet I would have to be content with having little. The internet has been the platform for so many different ideas that have shaped how we live today. It is also a ve … Read More

via kevinwutd

Jesus Hates Net Neutrality (via Strategic Mac)

Jesus Hates Net Neutrality (via Strategic Mac)

The Bible and, in particular, the New Testament have a great deal to say about morality and ethics. The advice is excellent and uplifting. However, I have sometimes encountered difficulty applying it some problems. For instance, the Bible seldom seems to address zoning issues or electronic eavesdropping. Nevertheless, there are people who seem to find in the great book, guidance on these particular issues. (You will catch my meaning in the excerpt below.)

I am a devoted to the idea of net neutrality. At the very least, I am devoted to it because I want to keep blogging and if my site is downgraded, everyone down to my relatives will stop looking at it.

The author has strong political views and I am fine with that. Bring on the political views! We need some serious discussions about what we should be doing in this country and what I usually hear was canned for public consumption about 80 years ago.

Read the article. Enjoy. This is some interesting writing.

James Pilant

Jesus Hates Net Neutrality Republicans are bound and determined to prove that with regard to Net Neutrality they are complete bone heads. Consider that the new Speaker of the House, speaking in front of the “Send your Money To Jesus” association, said that he will basically go to his grave attempting to make sure that big ISPs own the Internet. He said that if he can’t override t … Read More

via Strategic Mac

From the web site, radiobruxelleslibera:

The Slovenian Parliament has approved an innovative legislative framework on net neutrality which is going to shake the debate in Europe. The Slovenian law, adopted on December 20 and published in the Official Journal on December 31, confirms the open and neutral character of the Internet and prohibits discrimination of Internet traffic on the basis of the services provided through it. The concrete impact of the new rules, which in some parts appear a bit vague, will strongly depend on the implementation by the local regulator APEK. In any case, the first-sight impression is that the Slovenian Parliament is gone further than the corresponding provisions of the European Regulatory Framework (such as article 8(4)g of Directive 2002/21, for instance). The key-norm seems to be article 203 of the Slovenian law, pursuant to which (to my understanding) ISPs will be prevented from restricting, delaying or slowing Internet traffic except in the case they have to solve congestions, preserve security or address spam. In other words, differentiation of quality of Internet traffic should be prohibit if it is an instrument to discriminate Internet services for pure commercial reasons.

From the web site, The Telecom Blog:

Federal and state highways have the right to decide how much of a toll charge they charge cars that travel across their highways. In the same manner, it does seems reasonable that a carrier should have some control over the bandwidth, quantity, and speed they provide to their clients. Those customers needing more bandwidth, speed, and less intervention pay more of a toll charge, and those customers needing less pay less. As applications become more bandwidth intensive, the carriers need to spend massive infrastructure dollars upgrading their networks, and equipment, capacity … all of which costs money. Unless the US Federal Government wants to subsidize these infrastructure upgrade fees, they should allow the carriers, to some extent, decide how much, and what fees should be charged for anything crossing their networks.

And finally from the web site, The Antimatroid:

The Internet has proven to be the truest of democratic forms, a wildly successful bazaar, a comprehensive library and ultimately a platform that enables people from every background to access, distribute and discuss information. I suspect that we will see the Internet become real time, it will be able to provide us with location aware content, be on the smallest and largest of gadgets from our cellphones to computers. We will access all of our information from the Internet: music, radio, television and news. It will become easier to manage our social networks and personal data. The shift from English to local languages will begin to build momentum as Unicode support becomes more widely adopted. There will be potential for underrepresented regions to start having a presence on the Internet. Last but not least, it will start to see an increased trend towards less censorship and more regulation towards keeping it an open platform.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Thursday, February 17, is designated “Internet Strikes Back” day to “counter Congressional opposition to a fair and open Internet (via vRRitti.com, providing sentiency)

This is the day Congress votes on the issue of net neutrality. Heed the call and make your voice heard.

James Pilant

This Thursday, February 17, is designated “Internet Strikes Back” day to “counter Congressional opposition to a fair and open Internet Make no mistake: this will be a decisive vote. This is the only time that Congress will vote “yes or no” on Net Neutrality, so it’s crucial that they vote the right way. Help us send a clear message to Congress: a vote for the repeal act is a vote against internet users. In the coming days, we’ll be working to coordinate a national day of action on the 17th, when we’ll flood Congress with calls from Net Neutrality supporters.Here are three ways y … Read More

via vRRitti.com, providing sentiency

Net Neutrality and the First Amendment: Observations on the FCC’s order in Preserving the Open Internet (H. Travis) (via Marvin Ammori &)

This is a detailed legal analysis of the FCC order regarding net neutrality. If you have an interest in net neutrality and the legal issues surrounding the order and its aftermath, you have a very fine references source here.

James Pilant

I would like to thank Marvin for inviting me to blog here for a while as part of his merry band of cyber experts.  I teach cyberlaw and other subjects at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, FL.  I typically write about copyright, Internet freedom, and human rights law.   Although my first post will be about net neutrality, I hope in the future to blog on my other interests, including copyright, fair use, the First Amendment, … Read More

via Marvin Ammori &

Net Neutrality and the First Amendment: Observations on the FCC’s order in Preserving the Open Internet (H. Travis) (via Marvin Ammori &)

This is a detailed legal analysis of the FCC order regarding net neutrality. If you have an interest in net neutrality and the legal issues surrounding the order and its aftermath, you have a very fine references source here.

James Pilant

I would like to thank Marvin for inviting me to blog here for a while as part of his merry band of cyber experts.  I teach cyberlaw and other subjects at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, FL.  I typically write about copyright, Internet freedom, and human rights law.   Although my first post will be about net neutrality, I hope in the future to blog on my other interests, including copyright, fair use, the First Amendment, … Read More

via Marvin Ammori &

Net Neutrality alert: Verizon to throttle data speeds for heaviest users (via Between The Lines)

Is net neutrality important to you personally? How much data speed do you use? If you are like me and my family, you can only suspect that you might be a heavy user. That’s not good predictive power. If this policy is applied to you, it is probably going to be a surprise when your data speed is too slow for Netflix.

They are looking for their Internet Service.

Read the opening of the post

The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start powering up those devices next week.

In a nutshell, if you’re a heavy user – and you really have no way of knowing if that’s you or not – then Verizon Wireless “may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand.”

I don’t think we should let private industry decide these policies. The FCC regulated television and radio for decades bringing order out of chaos. Why shouldn’t we have standard policies across the nation? We are at the mercy of a handful of suppliers due to consolidation allowed by the very same government that people believe shouldn’t be regulating this at all. If we received our Internet services whether wired or wireless from hundreds of sources, all this would have been solved by competition. But a limited number of suppliers have no reason to cut prices to compete when they simply own the lines alone.

More from the web site –

That’s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don’t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?

I think so too. Why should I be charged for something I can’t measure? And what can I do to fix it if I need that bandwidth? I teach online. This is not an academic exercise. This is my work, and I’m not the only one that uses their home computer for something besides World of Warcraft.

In a monopolistic system of suppliers, I have no say at all. At least with the FCC, I’ve got a chip on the table.

James Pilant

P.S. The web site, Between the Lines, was my source and I would like you to visit if this subject interesting.

The Skuggi Report: Net Neutrality Made Simple (via Skuggi_Net)

This author has done a great job of breaking down a difficult subject into a straightforward narrative.

He wrote this little masterpiece of summary and I provide it to you.

Please visit his web site and thank him for his effort.

James Pilant

Net Neutrality is seen in two views of recent the first being a savior of the internet and the other it’s doom and to be honest depending on its implication it can be both.   The theory behind Net Neutrality is that it will keep the internet unrestricted, you pay for X level of service and you get that service with no services being blocked.   If one person on one ISP (Comcast, Adelphia, Verizon etc.) can get access to a type of content at the sp … Read More

via Skuggi_Net

Inside the Beltway… (via Scenarios and Strategy)

Click on the link below to see the cartoon. It’s a good one. The battle over net neutrality illustrated. This is delicious. And it is accurate.

Fighting the net neutrality battle for a small blog seems almost hopeless but there a lot of us. We’re disorganized and highly independent. It doesn’t make for good group cohesion. But we have our anger and each of us has our own niche on the web. Maybe we can make some difference in this battle.

James Pilant

Inside the Beltway... From Christopher Wright, a comic illustrating a theme that we’ve visited before (e.g., here and here)  While he focuses on Net Neutrality, one should feel free to substitute the Corporatist concern of one’s choice– energy policy, agricultural policy, financial industry policy, pharmaceuticals, intellectual property, etc., etc.– the mechanism works in just the same way… Corporations are people, the Supreme Court averred as it proscribed any im … Read More

via Scenarios and Strategy

Response to Rep. Marsha Blackburn: A True Conservative Tech Policy (via The Prelator)

This article is concerned with net neutrality. A good part of the article focuses on this issue. But the article takes on some other critical issues. One is Congress’ bizarre lengthening of the copyright privilege to seventy years plus the life of the author. It’s tragic in literature but in the tech world it ties up technology is a disastrous fashion. He also discusses new laws under consideration that would make suppliers of net access vulnerable to legal action over the content of their various customers. This would provoke massive censorship of the web not because there is illegality but to avoid the slightest possibility of illegality.

It’s a good article and his conclusions are very close to my own. I wish the author well.

James Pilant

On January 18, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn gave a speech purporting to give a conservative view of technology policy. As a strong conservative myself, I was deeply saddened to read this speech, which not only displays a deep lack of understanding about important policy issues facing the tech world, but a misunderstanding of the true tenants of conservatism in favor of the very corporate cronyism which Republicans are all too often accused of. … Read More

via The Prelator

Page 2 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén