Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
Re: Google, Verizon and Avoiding the Communist Concept of Net Neutrality
Posted by: Rob Enderle 2010-08-09 05:35:02
See Full Story
Last week, there was uproar about a rumored secret negotiation between Google and Verizon that, if successful, would result in Google customers getting better bandwidth. At the core of this controversy are three things: a lack of adequate action by the sitting administration; a lack of consistent definition of the concept of "Net neutrality," and the communistic nature of the definition that appears to underlie this outrage. This core concept of "equal to all" is fundamentally flawed and should be objectionable under the capitalistic model that currently maintains the U.S.
I cannot think of a country where equal access to the roads, for instance, are not, to some extent, controlled by the government. (The cars people drive is a different matter).
That is not communism, and neither is net neutrality.
That is not communism, and neither is net neutrality.
Arguing that regulating "net neutrality" is a form of socialism or communism is getting way out of line, and is a sign that the author is spending too much time with too few people.
.
Communism always have been about violent overthrow, which is not the way we responsible Americans wish to modify our governments.
.
Socialism/Government versus Private Enterprise is usually about who is gonna boss who around. Arrogant people can infest either one and cause misery. Government is supposed to be open and transparent, which is something schemers and scammers detest, so they holler loud and long for Private Enterprise to make the rules, where they can run and ruin the business.
.
Notice the rumored negotiation between Google and Verizon was "secret" - is that in the public interest ? Which public interest are we even talking about, the interests of consumers or the interests of other businesses who need to use the services provided by either company ? Both companies are enormously rich, but no more enormously rich than are AT&T and Apple.
.
Communism always have been about violent overthrow, which is not the way we responsible Americans wish to modify our governments.
.
Socialism/Government versus Private Enterprise is usually about who is gonna boss who around. Arrogant people can infest either one and cause misery. Government is supposed to be open and transparent, which is something schemers and scammers detest, so they holler loud and long for Private Enterprise to make the rules, where they can run and ruin the business.
.
Notice the rumored negotiation between Google and Verizon was "secret" - is that in the public interest ? Which public interest are we even talking about, the interests of consumers or the interests of other businesses who need to use the services provided by either company ? Both companies are enormously rich, but no more enormously rich than are AT&T and Apple.
I usually enjoy this blog because I find it informative, but this is a real disappointment. You clearly know nothing about economics or politics, and have no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism. No system is perfect, and the US is currently suffering acutely from having a form of capitalism that lacks effective social controls. That's why our middle class has been disappearing for the last several decades while the wealth and income of the top 1% has exploded by two orders of magnitude over the same period. For starters, Socialism, Capitalism and Communism are not mutually exclusive systems, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Your article reads like out-dated rhetoric from some Cold War propaganda pamphlet. Scandinavia, in particular has demonstrated how effectively socialism and capitalism can be combined to produce some of the most stable, successful and vibrant economies in the world, while we currently have something like 4 million people that have given up even looking for a job. Capitalism is great, but it has to have rules that keep the playing field level and insure a thriving middle class, which is the foundation of a stable and long-term viable economy. Left on its own, it quickly reduces the playing field to a handful of extremely rich people and turns the rest of us into indentured servants (which is happening as we speak -- Google the Plutonomy memo leaked from Citi Group if you think I'm exaggerating). Net neutrality is one of the last places where the playing field is still at least somewhat even. Let's see if we can't keep it that way! Like Google doesn't have enough control over the web already!!
The conflicts of the Business Models.
Posted by: Ericmo 2010-08-09 12:54:27 In reply to: Rob Enderle
It seems to me that the real conflict between the two different types of business models that Google and Verizon represent is at the heart of any conflict over any idea of net neutrality. You have Google that seeks to profit one way off of the internet which is content and then you have Verizon which handles the pipe line or gate way in which people access the net. Both need access to the general pipe line that is the net. So the real issue is the difference of business models. Both companies seem to recognize that fact, and as news reports today indicate both companies have reached a consensus as to how that conflict of business models ought to be resolved. Mr. Enderle was perhaps mistaken to compare the conflict between Communism and capitalism, but we all make mistakes.
The writer starts his article by screaming about socialism and Communism. Then he conflates Net Neutrality with property rights. Hah! The writer is a propagandist, not a pundit. So, why in the heck was this stupid article published?
Republicans hate the Internet, no news here.
Posted by: ApostasyUSA 2010-08-09 07:30:06 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Republicans hate the Internet because Republicans hate truth.
I can just picture Republicans sitting in front of their computers with some angry Fox news or Rush blaring in the background while they seethe over every bit of good news that finds its way in to the information sources they perceive as loyal to their misconceived caricatures of reality.
There is no such thing as a conservative. I understand the frustrations of everyone who wanted Obama to fix the world in 365 days, but I do NOT understand how anyone could be so illogical to think that Obama is an evil person bent on the destruction of this country.
There are people who vote for people that call themselves conservatives but really what you get is a bunch of theocrats who try to consolidate money and power to an elite group of ideological zealots who are willing to commit intense acts of hypocrisy simply to feel as if they have "won", like it's all some kind of game.
These toe tapping tools will stop at nothing to force your children learn myth in science classrooms such as ID or that the Earth was made 6000 years ago. These fake so called Republicans will vow that gays should not be able to live as non-gays do in our country, while simultaneously being gay in the closet. These people like to hate things. Fighting is what feels normal. These people are angry and angry people are easily exploited.
If you prefer a government that governs the least that's exactly what you are going to get. I don't believe there can be an intelligent debate with toe tapping Republican propagandist hacks. Hacks don't want to talk, they just want to be mad about something and government is an easy target. During the Bush days, the hacks were mad at Saddam, for the wrong reasons but it didn't stop them from exploiting the people into supporting a two trillion dollar tax payer funded unjust war did it? 4000 Americans and 100,000 (and counting) innocent Iraqi civilians died. Republican leaders said, "hey be mad at this", now they are saying, "hey be mad at this".
The fatalistic tragedians of our nation fall in line. The only thing we are conservative with is the use of our intelligence and the application of ethics.
I can just picture Republicans sitting in front of their computers with some angry Fox news or Rush blaring in the background while they seethe over every bit of good news that finds its way in to the information sources they perceive as loyal to their misconceived caricatures of reality.
There is no such thing as a conservative. I understand the frustrations of everyone who wanted Obama to fix the world in 365 days, but I do NOT understand how anyone could be so illogical to think that Obama is an evil person bent on the destruction of this country.
There are people who vote for people that call themselves conservatives but really what you get is a bunch of theocrats who try to consolidate money and power to an elite group of ideological zealots who are willing to commit intense acts of hypocrisy simply to feel as if they have "won", like it's all some kind of game.
These toe tapping tools will stop at nothing to force your children learn myth in science classrooms such as ID or that the Earth was made 6000 years ago. These fake so called Republicans will vow that gays should not be able to live as non-gays do in our country, while simultaneously being gay in the closet. These people like to hate things. Fighting is what feels normal. These people are angry and angry people are easily exploited.
If you prefer a government that governs the least that's exactly what you are going to get. I don't believe there can be an intelligent debate with toe tapping Republican propagandist hacks. Hacks don't want to talk, they just want to be mad about something and government is an easy target. During the Bush days, the hacks were mad at Saddam, for the wrong reasons but it didn't stop them from exploiting the people into supporting a two trillion dollar tax payer funded unjust war did it? 4000 Americans and 100,000 (and counting) innocent Iraqi civilians died. Republican leaders said, "hey be mad at this", now they are saying, "hey be mad at this".
The fatalistic tragedians of our nation fall in line. The only thing we are conservative with is the use of our intelligence and the application of ethics.
This is about ownership/private property
Posted by: Mkloppel 2010-08-09 07:11:36 In reply to: Rob Enderle
All the advocates of "neutrality" scream foul when these companies speak of using THEIR property as they see fit and shout the government should stop them.
What constitutional power is granted to congress (and its subsidiary the FCC) under article 1 section 8 of the constitution? None. And not that this is the fundamental principle that should stop our government from seizing property like this, but it brings a lot of other shenanigans into perspective.
If these people think it's acceptable for an arbitrary government office to seize even partial control over another property then this country has hit a new low.
These companies created and owned all of this and now some thieves want to control it, who here thinks this will make things run better? Who here thinks taking control of another property is a proper thing to do? Do we praise thieves who during the day are awesome investors and can spend your money better?
Gm was bad enough and that company went voluntarily. The banks went kicking and screaming when told they would eat the government handouts (the viable ones anyways) and now these looters want to control the internet...
If ATT doesn't want me talking about Capitalism on their network I'll go to Verizon or sprint, Tmobile, Time Warner, Comcast, Earthlink and ON and ON and ON!!!
But if the government runs it all where can I go then(and if they say what goes THEY DO RUN IT)? I smell socialized internet and it smells just as bad, if not worse, than socialized medicine.
What constitutional power is granted to congress (and its subsidiary the FCC) under article 1 section 8 of the constitution? None. And not that this is the fundamental principle that should stop our government from seizing property like this, but it brings a lot of other shenanigans into perspective.
If these people think it's acceptable for an arbitrary government office to seize even partial control over another property then this country has hit a new low.
These companies created and owned all of this and now some thieves want to control it, who here thinks this will make things run better? Who here thinks taking control of another property is a proper thing to do? Do we praise thieves who during the day are awesome investors and can spend your money better?
Gm was bad enough and that company went voluntarily. The banks went kicking and screaming when told they would eat the government handouts (the viable ones anyways) and now these looters want to control the internet...
If ATT doesn't want me talking about Capitalism on their network I'll go to Verizon or sprint, Tmobile, Time Warner, Comcast, Earthlink and ON and ON and ON!!!
But if the government runs it all where can I go then(and if they say what goes THEY DO RUN IT)? I smell socialized internet and it smells just as bad, if not worse, than socialized medicine.
This article seems to be more on macro-economics than on the concept of Net Neutrality. How does Google and Verizon's move affect your readers? Do you even know?
This is the silliest thing I've read in a month. A discussion of capitalism, socialism and communism? Really? Maybe the writer should read some history and see what happens to infrastructures without regulation - like the railroads & Rockefeller, or the electric companies and monopolies, and... well, there's more, but I suspect it's wasted breath.
And the part about the administration screwing up health reform? To laugh. What has the opposition offered except, you know, opposition? And somehow they contributed to the BP disaster? Really? What is this, the Rush Limbaugh program?
This is nonsense. I would expect better from a publication that calls itself technewsworld. There's no tech, no news, and a very skewed view of the world here. Good luck with that.
And the part about the administration screwing up health reform? To laugh. What has the opposition offered except, you know, opposition? And somehow they contributed to the BP disaster? Really? What is this, the Rush Limbaugh program?
This is nonsense. I would expect better from a publication that calls itself technewsworld. There's no tech, no news, and a very skewed view of the world here. Good luck with that.
Mr. Enderle's knowledge of communism and socialism is quite ludicrous, but at least he admits it "... I grew up here [in the US]." So, I wouldn't believe the first half of his article; take it from me, who grew up "there," in the socialism. That's one. Two, there is no a single bit (punt intended) of technical jargon in his article, supposedly on a tehnical subject. Now, if I were to replace Net Neutrality with Potatoes or Corn, the article will read just the same. I don't see why Mr Enderle's political bias (yes, got it, you don't like Obama) needs to be expressed here.
you sir, are an ignorant peice of work
Posted by: mattsqz 2010-08-09 06:40:05 In reply to: Rob Enderle
net neutrality is -not- communism, as if that were a bad thing anyhow. net neutrality is the -lack- of the ability of companies to determine who gets bandwidth based on affiliation and preference. everyone gets equal rights on the lines. this is, in fact, the way it was prior to august 5th 2005, when the FCC reclassified internet services as 'information services' rather than 'telecommunication services' - basically making the internet a product instead of a utility, like electricity. this means that companies can provide higher accessibility to the highest bidder, or whoever they are politically affiliated with. can you imagine if our highways only allowed traffic that is profitable to local companies to travel at the full 75mph, while everyone else was limited to 30mph? this is what you are promoting. also, keep in mind that your public schools, police, fire dept, etc are all socialised. go educate yourself, you pathetic fool.
