As a technologist, I am deeply involved in the Internet and networking issues. As a conservative, I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, less government intrusion into the private affairs of the public and the preservation of our Constitution and the freedoms which it protects.
The fundamental fact …
All data, whether in the form of an e-mail message, Twitter-tweet or massive video files, is sent via packets – a formatted block of data which contains address information, error-correction information and the actual data being transmitted. All packets are fundamentally similar. That is, other than the address, error correction and content, they all are seen by Internet systems in the same way.
What does network neutrality mean?
Simply put, network neutrality means that those who provide Internet services cannot treat some packets different from other packets. That is, they cannot charge more to transmit video packets than they charge to transmit e-mail packets. Nor can they charge more to prioritize the delivery of packets so that certain e-mail packets are delivered faster than other e-mail packets. Nor can they suppress packets containing information with which they do not agree.,
Who are they?
They are the common carriers and internet service providers. In some cases, the providers are common carriers (telephone, wireless and cable) who provide telephone service and are highly incensed that you can transmit conversations cheaply over the Internet rather than pay for a mix-and-match telephone plan based on incomprehensible tariffs subject to political control. They are the content providers who want the internet service providers to police the Internet, ostensibly to protect children against pornography, but in reality, to insure that you are paying each and every time that you access their proprietary content. They are the government, which mandates that all common carriers provide the government with the easiest possible means to monitor your communications. And, in the Obama Administration, possibly to filter the content of your communications.
Glenn Beck …
So when Glenn Beck portrays network neutrality as a government takeover, he is factually incorrect and may be disingenuous.
The government is already deeply involved in the Internet, courtesy of CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) and, as we all suspect, the monitoring of the Internet by the NSA (National Security Agency) and various other intelligence agencies. Provided that the government plays by the rules and uses valid search warrants and other safeguards, I have no problem with the United States protecting us against terrorists or other threats to our country.
However, if the government attempts to control the Internet with the restrictions on content, delivery or access, then they can go straight to hell.
The reason I believe Glenn Beck may be disingenuous is simply because he is employed by Rupert Murdock – a man whose very being demands control over content. A content generator who wants the Internet gatekeepers to police the Internet to further protect his commercial interests. During his latest exposition on network neutrality, I believe there was inadequate disclosure of his employer’s intense interest in the issue and the fact that his employer wants to defeat network neutrality.
For Beck to ask “Who’s for net neutrality?” And then respond with; “Only the little people, the global corporations like Google, Amazon and Microsoft.” And going on to ask, “Who exactly are we protecting?” is disingenuous. Perhaps he should have disclosed that his employer, Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation” is against network neutrality – so they can further control the delivery, timing and use of their content.
While I believe that content providers should have the right to control their own content, I also believe that these content providers do not have the right to violate my rights by imposing technological restrictions on my electronic devices or Internet access and pricing to preserve their rights. How many people know that Americans were prevented from obtaining digital audio recorders when they were routinely available to anybody living in or visiting Japan? How many people knew that certain media, like blank CD-ROMs were surcharged and the amount remitted to the Copyright office to be divided up among the large music distributors? How many people know that electronic safeguards are built-in to today’s computers to prevent the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content? Or that software vendors are eliciting information on your system in the guise of authenticating their content licenses?
It angers me greatly to know that the government is using this nation’s utility and communications vendors as unofficial tax collectors – collecting an insidious tax which does not show up on your tax return; so as to not provoke additional outrage. Likewise, it would anger me greatly to find out that content providers were turning internet service providers into toll-takers to act on their behalf. All while the government takes a bigger slice of my income as a tax on the content provider’s increased revenues.
Or Perhaps Beck was referring to the government’s increasing insistence that they need to promulgate rules and regulations through the Federal Communications Commission or other such official body. Truth-be-told, fraud, misrepresentation and defamation – whether presented in the traditional media (press, radio, television) or the new media (Internet) – can be prosecuted. Other than promoting communications standards involving overlapping frequencies and quality issues, the F.C.C. should stay away from content regulation of any kind; be it pushing government propaganda in the guise of public service announcements or extorting money for public broadcasting with surcharges on commercial broadcast operations.
It’s for the children …
Many rules and regulations are foisted on the public in the guise of protecting the children. An argument which is demonstrably false. Most adults would be shocked at the level of sophistication and sexuality of grade-school age children. Who was there to protect these children from Hollywood products or government policies demanding the teaching of sexuality at early ages? How many people know that the major telecommunication carriers encourage and profit from pornography – which generates extremely profitable business for mainstream companies? Many advances in technology and security are driven by porn: the video recorder, the DVD and the Internet to cite a few.
Fairness …
We have witnessed the corruption and/or complacency of the mainstream media. We have turned to talk radio and the Internet to hear both sides of the story – and to talk back, to make our own opinions known. I certainly cannot afford to pay for a newspaper page, an hour on radio – but I can afford to publish this blog to the world at a relatively small cost. Therefore, when people speak of fairness in the media, they are speaking about promoting their own agenda, not yours. They want to overwhelm the public with their propaganda, not yours.
Yes, there is a concentration of ownership in the media – and, in many cases, they are faced with a shrinking audience. People are engaging in other time-consuming activities and do not have time to read multiple publications to form a political perspective. People listen to radio while they are engaged in driving to other locations, to do other things. The television people who try to tell a story in a two- to three-minute segment are doomed to becoming purveyors of “headline” news – reporting or spinning shocking events which will hold an audience. But I am very much opposed to any government intervention which will preserve these decaying business models in return for pushing government propaganda to the public. In a free-market, people vote with their time, energy and money – supporting those who they favor and ignoring all others.
In the final analysis, network neutrality is not charging consumers (who have already paid for their computer equipment, software, communications equipment and the physical access to the Internet) a surcharge based on what content resides in a packet – undistinguishable from billions of other packets without a “deep packet penetration scanner.” Network neutrality is keeping the government away from regulating content, political or otherwise, that is legal under the current laws of the United States.
Network neutrality is about preserving our rights as consumers of bandwidth and not about the government takeover of the Internet.
I believe that Glenn Beck is dead wrong when he equates network neutrality with the government takeover of the Internet. Lest you get the wrong impression, I admire and respect Glenn Beck for his efforts in attempting to save our nation from a confluence of radical left-wing Marxists, socialists and other activists – and returning our nation to a representative democracy based on constitutional values. But about the characterization of network neutrality, I vehemently disagree with Beck.
Should you want to chime in on this conversation, please feel free to use the comment panel below or send me an e-mail using the link below my picture.
Be safe, be well and, above all, take care of yourself and your family first.
-- steve
I think you're off about Glenn Beck. Your correct in your definition of net neutrality but the government version of the regulations being considered do not follow the original defintion. Glenn was correct to warn us, and point out the big players who will benefit. How do you figure Murdock and his Fox News Empire control their packets? It's the ISP's who are going to end up controlling which sites get the best treatment. What we are going to end up with it net-non-neutrality.
===========================================
The difference between the existing state of network neutrality and what is being proposed by the government is the ability of the FCC to assume more power to regulate the Internet. This issue is larger than network neutrality and did exist prior to the Obama Administration. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration sought further executive powers by attempting to regulate child pornography on Internet. Thus, the network neutrality issue is not the government power grab it was portrayed to be.
As for Murdock and the other Hollywood content providers, they and their lobbyists are about imposing technological restrictions on packet creation, transmission and management. One, by adding a broadcast or copyright flag to the packet infrastructure which would signal restricted material and designate rights and permissions. And two, by promoting hardware and software requirements which recognize certain types of content and apply content-management rules.
Did you notice that the big companies cited as wanting network neutrality are Microsoft, Amazon and Google? One merchant, one aggregator/news site and one content and infrastructure provider whose software losses probably exceed most Hollywood product. No mention of the major studios and record companies who fight against network neutrality to secure their content -- even the stuff that is in the public domain. These are the people who demanded our hardware and software be altered to protect their interests rather than the open and free dissemination (in the public domain) of information.
Most of the major isps are telecommunications carriers who must, by law (CALEA) provide monitoring services to the government. They already have deep-packet monitoring in place and functioning. It it unknown how they get around handling encrypted content and what this might signify.
I am watching these developments closely. Mike, I suggest that, if you have not already done so, join the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation at eff.org) to continue the fight for freedom on the Internet.
Thanks for commenting. -- steve
Posted by: Mike Ortiz | November 10, 2009 at 05:34 PM