Net Neutrality – A Dialog (Part 2)

Nato: if that happens

they are destroying the reason that people visit the internet

they are killing their customers

Jason: just making it less useful

not killing them

and they won’t complain loud enough

Nato: the reason people visit the internet is because its infinitely useful

that’s why companies get internet connections for their employees

Jason: bull! They’ll visit it if it’s only a little useful, and you know it.

Nato: that’s why people buy DSL

it’s all on the margin

Jason: yeah… about all those websites with information

they’ll have to go

or finda way to make you pay for info

because they can’t just leave out to broadcast

what I am saying is you’ll get the internet version of microsoft’s product

Nato: if there are costs, it is immoral to force someone to bear those costs.

it might be the case that the internet will suck more.

but I think a lot of people will want it to not suck

and therefore there are huge incentives to figure out how to make it keep working.

Jason: there’s no alternative so people will just take it

if you buy a car you have to buy gas for it to be useful

that’s a cost that you shouldn’t have to pay to use your system

so by your logic it’s immorral for car companies to sell cars

Nato: what?

Nonsense.

Jason: find me the difference

Nato: if you buy a car…

car companies are selling a transportation solution

if you want to use it

it is known beforehand that you have to buy gas

Jason: you know there is a cost to using it… fuel… the companies know there is a cost to providing internet

Nato: it would be immoral to force car companies to buy gas for all their cosutmoers

Jason: that you have to provide it

ok… if that’s what you feel that’s up to you… the internet is a useful resource… and allowing tiered internet… will make it minimally useful

Nato: the companies own equipment… that equipment costs money to maintain.

Jason: that’s what corporations are good at… making the minimal usefulness

and if you’re cool with that… good

they get payed in subscribers

Nato: take a breath dude

I am

I think we’re both getting worked up.

Jason: dude… you are telling me you want to make the internet less useful… how is that better than now

Nato: It’s more moral

it’s like slavery.

slavery is really usefull

Jason: that’s bull… they know what they are getting into to run the network

Nato: it is immoral to force someone to provide for free a service that costs them money.

the fact that they did so for so long

is irrelevant

I’d love it if they kept doing it

but it’s immoral to force them to.

hopefully what will happen

is that small networks will spring up all over the place

that are free

and open source

wireless mesh networks

things like that

that provide an alternative to the corporo-fascists telcos

Jason: you can’t pass the traffic that way… you’ll only be able to get to local areas

it’s like what would probably have happened if america didn’t build roadways

Nato: the nice thing about IP is that it scales up

lots of mesh networks make big networks

Jason: we’d only have local traffic

Nato: well

if our local mesh network were disconnected from any other networks

that would be true

but if someone sets up a link to another network

then we’d be connected to them

that’s how networks work

Jason: yeah… along that person’s link

what incentive do they have to do that?

getting paid??

it’s either that… or just to be nice

Nato: you want to have as many links as possible

dude

it’s a mesh network

lots of people like you would set ‘em up

and me

and joel

Nato: and everyone who is for net neutrality legislation

Jason: yeah but if your system is the only one along a certain node… all traffic passes through you

making it so you can’t get out anywhere

like a one lane road that you set up out of the kindness of your heart

Nato: if you’re the only node at that point

and there’s congestion

then there’s a lot of incentive to set up another link

it’s a fricking network

don’t pretend you don’t know how networks work

Jason: incentive?

what incentive

you keep saying that word

Nato: everyone on that network wants more access

right?

that link is clogged

so if someone opens up another link

then their neghbors will make them pies

and throw a party

or whatever the hell it is

that people do to express their gratitude at being granted something they want

the main thing is

Jason: you’re forgetting we’re born into entitlement here… you and I might express gratitude (maybe) but I don’t think it would be widespread

Nato: that’s fine

then the person charges access

to everyone who didn’t send them a thank you note

whatever

the point is

that it’s immoral to force someone to provide something for free

and that emergent systems are more capable than top down solutions

almost always

Jason: it was emergent… until corporations wanted their piece of it.

early on the links were set up by universities who wanted access

Nato: well hell!

current universities would still provide access for free, right?

Jason: what’s to stop that from happening again… and every time everyone loses access

it will seriously take many years for access to work through again because it has to use a different channel

Nato: here’s what happens:

the emergent network is more popular than the corporate network

and the corporation goes out of business

or changes their business model

Jason: like microsoft… but that’s taking for fucking ever

Nato: but few future companies will make the same mistakes microsoft did

all we can do is speed things up

make the emergent netoworks more powerful NOW

rather than later

so that when

inevitably

the corporo-fascists

get their way

we’ve already got an alternative

and they’re irrelevant

but legislating it

is a temporary solution

at best

and an immoral one.

if anything

it will accelerate the confluence of corporate and governmental power

because suddenly

the government has decided it can legislate in a domain

that it has ’till now left relatively untouched

Jason: ok… I see your point… It’s not ok to force them to pay… they should be given the choice… if we give them the choice I’m pretty sure I know where it will go, because I know how the bottom line will be effected… and it means letting go of a really good resource that we’ll have to build up again from scratch

but seriously

we know they won’t do the right thing because it’s not the right thing in the market

I guess it’s possible google’s dark fiber is for use with this alternative network

seeing a corporate stranglehold they may have anticipated them

Nato: one can hope so

and one can hope they’ll keep being not evil.

Jason: well interestingly google’s bottom line is pro neutrality… so as long as they keep being corporate they don’t even have to worry about the not being evil part

ha… if google has sufficient fiber it could enter the telco market… if the other telco’s decide on teiring it up google’s positioned to wipe them out

Nato: yes

Jason: how funny… you gotta wonder if the telcos see it coming? I mean they’re still heading headlong into it

Nato: that is ideally what would happen

people who try to provide shitty services

get penalized

Jason: the market is just way too hard to get into… only a google or someone that big could do it

Nato: the thing is

that if there are large market incentives

then there are large investors

and smart people

who will find a way

Jason: only if setting up the alternative is cheaper than the shit

so you get a certain amount of shit with markets

before switch happens

but you could have no shit… but the market doesn’t work that way… it gives you an average amount of shit

This discussion is continued here:

http://humanegg.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/net-neutrality-a-dialog-part-3/