Note: This was supposed to be one post dealing with both the silly notion that there should be a different standard for the wired internet against the wireless internet and the idea that kids will have to one day have the legal right to change the name when they get older because of all the information about them that would exist on the net, but I am getting too long of wind for that to be reasonable for that to be reasonable in one post. Expect more shortly, perhaps even later tonight, but definitely soon...however you feel it to be.
To digress from the subject at large--stupid things coming out of Eric Schmidt's mouth, I don't give a flying fuck about how much money these wireless companies lose because they would engage in a just wireless world. If the companies focused less on profits, and, therefore, financial customers, and actually worried about the kind of service they are offering, then they might have a future. If we, at least for the moment, or moving from a place where we are going to try to keep around businesses--in some form, though probably not in the form of corporate capitalism, it might be a good idea for companies to actually try and offer a decent service and to be constantly trying to expand the capability and capacity of these telecommunication products.
Now, let's deal with Eric. The first big mistake that he made was his framing of the net neutrality debate. By framing it in the terms of capital, he leaves room for the idea that companies can do what ever they will with data rates, perhaps simply because wireless data hasn't caught up to the point where it can act on the same level as wired connections and, therefore--mayhap, replace it. Of course, if a company is going to lose money because it has to treat all connections fairly, then--sure--let them charge more if someone is going to make more of what they already supposedly paid for.
Let's get out of our heads the notion that we should care about net neutrality because of some idea of profits. You, chere reader, are not going to see any money from this. Okay, maybe that isn't totally true. Maybe one person, perhaps two--but not enough to start the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement1, will read this who works at a web based company, a professional blog, or some company that derives a strong portion of its profits, or--for the sake of this train of thought--any portion, from the internet. Still, that will not be my average reader and--unless they feel that the right to profit, not the right to make any income--but profit2, is more important than the right I will propose in opposition--they thus have no reason to base their judgement on the possibility of profit, something they will likely never taste.
Instead, let's base our standing on a more moral foothold and assume that net neutrality is something worth pursuing because it would make access to all information equal, or at less prevent it form becoming less equal. Obviously, if you don't have access internet, an absence of net neutrality only makes your situation infinitely worse. Then, from there, we work our way up from dial-up, and there certainly are people still connecting to the internet that way, all the way up to the fastest fiber optic cables that money can buy, and I'm thankful that I am in a household with such access. So, with that as a given, it's obvious that the net is, in one respect, not neutral. But, rather, what we are facing is another attempt by companies to take back what they have already offered.
The drive for profits has become so insatiable that companies are now trying to snatch back what they have already given away. Quake Live is now offering paid for subscriptions. Major newspapers are now walling off more of their content, or at least requiring you to register an account to access information--probably so they can better "monetize" on the information that you are selling to them simply by visiting the publication.3 So, from a consumer's rights point of view, there is a strong reasoning to see the non-neutral net as a step backwards from what you have today.
Now, would I necessarily want the government stepping in to Quake Live to ensure that everyone got all the features it can offer--for free? Hell no, and it would probably lead to the game being "toned down," or--essentially--killed. Do I want the government stepping in with funds to keep newspapers afloat? Fuck no! But, it seems like a no brainer to me that if you want a fair representation of reality, then you need to disentangle reporting from the profit motive--especially as the cancer spreads rapidly now, more than ever--if you want objective--not neutral--reporting. But that's a subject for another post.
We have a very different problem when it comes to the internet because it isn't merely a product that is immediately delivered. The value of the internet is not in and of itself. Just because I connect my computer to an Ethernet plug--or go over WiFi--does not mean I am using the internet or, in a real sense, consuming my purchase of an internet connection, though I suppose at the very least it would allow for my OS to update itself. So, much like a telephone--for obvious reasons, a computer requires something to connect to to make use of an internet connection. What's so great about the internet now is that I can get to stonerrock.com at the same speed that I can get to facebook.com. Well, perhaps not exactly. Though, while Facebook may be able to pay for fasyer servers and more bandwidth than Stoner Rock, and All That Is Heavy and Meteor City, Internet Service Providers play no other role in that exchange.
So, you can buy better tech or more bandwidth, but the companies remain neutral in the process. But, if Internet Service Providers start colluding with private companies, then the best thing the web has done--crowd sourcing--will likely vanish as the channels that allow for their access will vanish, simply because these openly shared avenues of information and discussion will no longer be able to afford to exist on the internet.
It's bad enough as it is that wireless data rates are disturbingly expensive for what you get in return, but what's more dangerous is the idea that people will be silenced for the sake of profit. Most disappointingly, if anything gains traction in the net neutrality argument, it will likely be slighter moneyed interests saying it will hurt their business. Oh noes! They won't will be able to cheat--er, compete. But, what really frightens me about a non-neutral net is the idea that speech decrying a move way from a non-neutral net--speech like this--could be silenced, and that would be wron--
I'm sorry, I can't let you do that Max.
Who said that? Who are you? And what right do you have to stop--ME!?
I'm Fios. Goodnight, Max.
---
1. 50 People--technically per day, which would therefore make these units even more impractical, so we're going to remove the time portion from it.
2. I'm therefore assuming that there is a possibility to make some money on net neutral internet--indeed probably enough to make a profit, but that the existence of a net neutrality is a force to prevent exorbitant levels of profit that would seem to the reasoned man to be unjust.
3. And--OH!--how I rue the fact that Blogger that displays a tab called Monetize in the window here. Chere reader, now this, I will not use this blog to directly profit.4
4. I have no idea how I would define profits at this moment, so I will leave some room for me to forget what I said and for you to try to forgive me, hard as it may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment