Jul
29
Tania Derveaux
Though a common internet user never realizes but every packet of data sent or received by every internet user passes through the routers and transmission channels and infrastructure owned by a collection of private and public bodies, including telecommunication companies and government. It shows that net is not as free as it is considered or suggested to be.
Internet is the current format of propagation of information and knowledge; it is becoming the basic means of media.
Should media be controlled? What would be better and preferable, a free press, or a controlled press under governmental or corporate control? Should the broadband provider companies like BSNL, Reliance, AIRTEL etc are allowed to dictate us what to see and what not to, what to write and what not to? Should government be allowed to dictate the citizens what to read and know and what to ignore?
If it is allowed then how will we define freedom?
Since the start the Internet has operated in accordance with the principle of net neutrality, that is, the Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. Net Neutrality is the prevailing rule of the Internet that requires that Internet service providers not discriminate including speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net neutrality protects our ability to direct our own online activities. With net neutrality in place, a network’s job is to move data in a non-discriminatory manner, based on what people want. Basically that is what actually keeps making Cyberspace as one of the most liberal form of freedom of expression which allows no bindings of boundaries, religions or caste, creed etc.
Internet has become an essential part of our daily life activities. Abandoning net neutrality would mean to give the deciding authority for what the end internet user should see or read or use. If the broadband or Dial-up providers are allowed to control or charge the content providers and if my favourite content provider (say yahoo or google or msn) does not pay my local broadband service provider, would I have to switch favourites in order to have a faster internet experience? Furthermore, won’t it be in the hands of those broadband providers to control what I watch or see on internet? Again they may try to be the moral police. Obviously, they will become a mere tool of government authorities to see and control what to provide the citizens and what to restrict on a major part.
So, although it seems to be genuine on the part of the broadband providers if they demand charges from the content providers to let their traffic free flow, yet, basically it would be anti-liberal for the Individual user. Furthermore, the work of broadband providers is to provide free flow of the traffic for which they charge the individual consumers. Any try by any broadband provider to control the traffic will distort the freedom of the user.
Is there any need for a law to protect the net neutrality?
Out of many broadband providers, if any single one provides free-traffic, it will gain maximum of the users. So basically, net neutrality is the principle which is automatically protected by the principles of free-market. But what if the government itself starts controlling the content traffic?
At present, Internet is the perfect universal Democracy. One can access the smallest blog of a person as easily and quickly as he can access the websites of a major corporate. This provides strength to the individual citizen to use his right of freedom of expression and speech properly on a large base.
My stand on net neutrality is pretty simple. Net traffic should not be restricted, but net-neutrality or diversification of traffic on net can not be protected by any legislation or enforcing law. The net-neutrality should be decided by the market forces and not by regulations.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other big players demand net neutrality. They argues that telecom service providers cannot dictate the phone users whom they can call, similarly, network dictators should not dictate what people should do online. It is true.
The electricity providers can charge the electricity users, but can the electricity providers charge the manufacturers of CD-players? Plug any CD player to electricity irrespective of its brand manufacturer, and it will play. So how can a broadband provider demand google, yahoo, MSN or even a common man’s personal site or blog to pay them?
Tania Derveaux 2
Tania Derveaux the sizzling candidate for Senate in the 2007 Belgian general election, who created the parody attack over the political issue of other political parties “to provide jobs” by advertising, she will provide “blowjobs”(Read more at Wikipedia) has again rocked the world by declaring “I will make love with every virgin who defends the Internet.” One may call it madness, I say it’s brilliant.
Her website ““Don’t Stay Virgin”says—
“I’m using sex in a positive way to spread awareness. The reason why only virgins can apply is because I don’t want to make this promise to such a large amount of people that I’ll have to turn some down.
Net neutrality is paramount to safeguard free speech and innovation on the Internet. With only one arguably negative side-effect: an unusual amount of today’s Internet users are virgin. That’s a problem I intend to solve. In history, man has always waged war for freedom. Now it’s time to obtain our freedom with love.
Sex is all over the net and yet it’s still a big taboo for many. Using sex to spread awareness will be yet another big step to sexual freedom. This is just another great example of what’s possible thanks to net neutrality.”
Related Posts
1 views44 Responses to “Net Neutrality: is Net free?”
Leave a Reply
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:13 amThere is a massive amount of pro-net neutrality campaign going on web, and I think you got highly influenced by some of their arguments.
Net Neutrality is like price control mechanism. If you invented a new device say iPhone(production cost $100), and govt makes a law that you cannot sell it for more than $120 to people, then technically it sounds good that now you cannot force people to charge more money, but considering the part that you can only create 1000 sets per year, there is high unavailability of the gadget. Yes iPhone is in your reach, the small man, but there is no availability unless you are highly lucky.
On the other hand if you are allowed to charge any amount of money, you will of course put them for auctions, first people who really need it and can pay a lot for it will buy, your phones will be sold for $10,000, and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will buy them, soon with that much windfall profits you will be expanding your production, making 10,000 sets a year thereby bringing down the price to $500 per set, being able to sell it to more and more people. Then to 100,000 sets a year now being sold for only $120 per set.
Therefore price control harms people. Saying something like:
is like saying Prices should remain equal but govt should not do it.
The point is, prices should NOT remain equal, rich guy must be allowed to pay more and get better services.
You being a blogger might sympathize to a Net Neutral stance, but the truth is that having a preferential delivery mechanism benefits everyone. Why do you think your blog(which is a non-profit opinion column) must get same priority as a real time stock quotes to a trader? The ping back time(time it takes for a packet to reach from source to destination) is so inconsistent that you cannot device your technology relying on a consistent ping time.
For example if a doctor in Europe wants to operate on a patient in Africa on a robotic machine, he cannot rely on Internet for the data transmission, because some people in Middle East wanted to read your blog, or watch nude chicks online.
Of course you don’t “support” Net neutrality, but you sure do sympathize with it or at least consider it to be desirable. Net Neutrality is not desirable, profit making traffic should always get more priority over non-profit making traffic. And don’t forget that overall bandwidth prices will be cheap.
This is nothing but the job of Google, MSN’s marketing team. When all the big companies support a viewpoint, you gotta get a funny feeling in your gut. Without net neutrality Google and Yahoo’s profits massively come down. There won’t be a single monolithic web service dominating the web, rather a tri-state company might start paying the tri-state ISPs more to have its data delivered to tri-state customers at a faster rate. The big companies will be the biggest losers in such a situations, but overall customers will benefit a lot.
This example is inaccurate, electricity provider charging the CD player owner is not the same as ISPs discriminating against the data. Look at it this way, whose property a website is using? The ISP’s. So the ISP has a complete property right on his bandwidth. The data as far its on the website is owned by the website. As it moves to the ISP’s wires, its owned by the ISP, and once it reaches the user, its owned by the user. Just as you have a right to allocate any amount of RAM on your computer to load any webpage, ISP has a right to allocate any priority on data on its lines, just as website host every right on what data it wants to store on his server.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:26 amAgain Google propaganda, Telecom companies CAN discriminate, and they DO, discriminate. Anyone who calls internationally knows it. If you buy a cheaper calling card to India from US, you will get poorer quality(they have limited bandwidth, so if they divide it among more people you will get cheap tariff but poor quality, if they divide it among less people you will get dearer tariff, but better quality.
Its your choice how you wanna use it, and in fact its really good for people. For example if I wanna call my dad and talk some serious issue, then use a expensive card(which gives me 10 cents per min), if I wanna talk to my mom while cooking and taking recipes use a cheap card(3 cents per min). That’s the most efficient allocation of my resources.
Who Owns the Internet? - Mises Institute
The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:46 amPrices should remain equal but govt should not do it. The point is, prices should NOT remain equal, rich guy must be allowed to pay more and get better services.
I have no problem with it. Yet the stand will remain same. If even a single broadband provider decides not to charge the traffickers, then mere a way of simple publicity in its area will gain the whole bunch of users. The point is NOT only about the question of charging the search engines. On the name of controlling vulgarity, any government can ban a number of sites without even giving reason. On the name of creating trouble in society, authorities can dictate the broadband providers to avoid certain sites as per the liking of the rulers qua government. So, basically, the campaign about net neutrality is not about google, yahoo paying for traffic on net, the campaign is avoiding the government or authorities to control public and dictating them what to view and what not to. In mixed economies, it’s a universally known truth that the government and the corporate owns each other, it is merely a form of oligarchy at large, so to talk of market freedom in a mixed economy is just a joke. And keeping that “joke” in mind, my stand about the issue of net neutrality remains same, net neutrality should not be restricted, but there should not be any law over it. Market forces should decide it.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:48 amJust as you have a right to allocate any amount of RAM on your computer to load any webpage, ISP has a right to allocate any priority on data on its lines, just as website host every right on what data it wants to store on his server.
True, and I have mentioned this point in the article. I am not influenced by debates of google, yahoo or msn. I am taking net-neutrality as a question of government and government influenced corporate to deciding what a person should watch on internet and what he should not. It is not about price, it is about banning, today you say price should be taken, tomorrow they will say We Don’t want our state’s citizens to watch certain sites as they are anti-social, or vulgar, or spreading disgusting false against a government, a religion a cult etc. I am considering the net as a form of media. Irrespective of news item be of google, or yahoo, or Amitabh Bachchan or Shahrukh Khan or Maruti or TATA, a news channel or a news paper will charge same amount for printing a news item from the respective companies or people. About your idea that rich guys should pay more than the poor guy, my question is why? Why should they pay more? Are they getting any better facility? You mean to say that the same rice which a poor may buy at rs2 per killo, I should get it at some higher price (say Rs20/ killo, well according to me it is wrong and ill. The price of rice should be same for me and all other people irrespective of one being rich or one being poor. It can be the remark of some communist or socialist, because it is pro-poor and Utilitarian. It is basically subsidizing rice for poor and taxing the rich for the rice. Yes well if by pricing high to rich they provides better facility for the rich, then it is reasonable. Now if it is done, who will pay for wikipedia and other similar co-operative site traffic? Well according to me, if it is done, then the capitalist stand of MSN Encarta and Britannica encyclopaedia will win the race. So Obviously, in a free-market, if market decides the question of net-neutrality, then it will benefit the issue of Capitalism and hence freedom from various ills like plagiarism violation of copy-right acts etc, because why will some search engine upload material for which nobody is ready to pay? And why will anybody pay for something if he is not earning by it? I support net-neutrality against the banning of any form of site on the issue of anti-theism, vulgarity, sex, violence etc because by merely posting something on net, nobody creates any sort of violence, he just expresses and he should be free for expressing. I support higher charges for better facilities for the big companies because it will resolve the problem of plagiarism and theft of Intellectual property to a great extent.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:56 amSorry but you didn’t do your research properly(or at least this is a pathetic spin you are trying to give).
The sides on Net Neutrality aren’t
“Lets make Net Neutral for free speech”, and “Lets give govt the power to control the Internet”,
rather
“Lets use govt to make Net Neutral” and “Lets keep the govt out of Internet”.
Please tell me how is keeping govt OFF the Internet will empower them to restrict free speech? And how the hell giving govt power to control the Internet will actually save free speech?
I told you Google’s marketing team is really good. I too initially after finding out about Net Neutrality took a pro-Net Neutrality stance, and this issue has been always so confusing for me, but this time I am actually with Bush Govt.
All the thing you hear “Govt is trying to control the Internet” is propaganda, its actually “Govt is refusing to stop ISPs from controlling the Internet”.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:08 amCheck out the status of current Network Neutrality bill, its mostly supported by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans(the ruling party:
Network Neutrality Legislation
And you won’t even believe what they named it as, its called “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2007”, now which American will not be seduced by such a name. Another act is called “Internet Non-Discrimination Act” which got massive support from the American Liberals. But all these acts are pro-government involvement acts, irrespective of what they say.
So all the argument you wrote two comments ago about Govt restricting websites, it will be done AFTER the Net Neutrality acts have been enacted, all in the name of Net Neutrality.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:20 amOn Both accounts you are wrong.
Why should I take the meaning of “net neutrality” as per the government is trying to dictate?
I have clarified my stand, It should be in the hands of Market Force.
Even if a single ISP decided to charge equal and minimal from all, it will earn maximum number of users and hence maximum users. Hence, there is no need of any Neutrality law.
Yet, even in the absence of Net-Neutrality law, government and the oligarchic corporates do have the authority to restrict sites on wrong and unreasonable issue-based discriminations. And that is simply wrong. The ISP and the government should remain NEUTRAL towards what a site prapogates or expresses or shows. No matters if it shows most brutal acts of violence. Government or ISP cannot and shouldnot ban it, it should remain NEUTRAL towards even most contentious issues on net.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:23 amAbout government using Net-neutrality law after its inactment, well my stand is, a present in the scenario of mixed economy, government is already and always in a position to use internet for its own desirable set of conditions without any such law, and even if such law is made, it will use it for its own purpose in other way round.
So I am not concerned about government using such law after its inactment.
I am concerned about the much needed neutrality of government overe the issues expressed on net by the consumers on a/any site (personal or private).
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:26 amAs for example, many times many communities on orkut gets deleted or banned by google just because some number of people complains its anti-hindu or vulgar etc. Some communities were deleted by special complaints by shivsainiks via Maharastra government to google.
My point is, google, ISP’s and government itself, should remain neutral.
A person should not be forced to pay High prices to open a site just because it is showing some adult sex related subject, or religious discussion or atheistic discussion etc.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:41 amBecause Network Neutrality is a technical term and whole internet uses it that way.
And Network neutrality is different than content neutrality, and considering how you are defining Network Neutrality, you don’t mind if a site prioritizes my data over your data as long as it is not done by keeping content in mind.
And how do you fit this attitude about dictating terms on ISPs over private property rights.
If I don’t like your face I can stop you from using my road, as long as its my road I have a right to do so. I have a right to give priority to some specific user who pays more. These are all private property rights.
Isn’t that a very anti-private property rights approach? Dictating terms on Google? ISPs? How do you claim that you have a right over demanding Google’s policies? If you wanna merely suggest Google to be content neutral then make it clear.
Lemme make it all clear for you:
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:48 amIsn’t that a very anti-private property rights approach? Dictating terms on Google? ISPs? How do you claim that you have a right over demanding Google’s policies?
Just to remind you, India doesn’t follow American first amendment law, (when will you realize that?)
Dictating? well yes Instead of being dictated by government or government ruled ISP’s, (infact in India, even google, yahoo and msn are ruled by government) hence government ruled search engines, I support the idea of dictating the government.
Remember, theres no property law in India. and what is government? Government is servant of Indian citizens, so being an Indian citizen, i literally have the authority to “dictate” indian government.
Although that authority is just virtual.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:55 amWhy do you think I named BSNL, AIRTEL, Reliance, and not AT&T or BELL?
Because I am talking of India. Trust me just like me, even BSNL or Reliance also have no property rights.
So what do you think you are defending?
Net neutrality on indian terms just means the neutrality of government towards the content.
Second thing is, in indian terms, the ISP’s are government controlled, search engines are government backed. I have no problem if government charges more to google or yahoo, but when government tricks the search engines and ISP’s to givve subsidies or greater band width “if” they follow indian terms (terms of indian moral police government) then it becomes messy.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:58 amAnd thank me that I was not talking of Pakistan.
In Pakistan General Parvez musharraf literally banned all internet and TV cable channels including all news channels after the removal of pakistani Cheif justice.
I don’t think that india is any better, thats different thing that such action is rare in India, but not Impossible.
Indira Gandhi did applied emergency law for one and half year during her tenure.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pmSomething told me you would say that. But merely discussing something American pisses you off that much. My point was clear enough for anyone to hear. Content censorship is not an issue of Network Neutrality rather than of Free Speech. The issue here in hand is, why did you support Network Neutrality in your article here:
This whole comment section is an attempt to demand an explanation of why do you think Network neutrality is desired(of course you don’t want govt to do it, but you do want it). And you started to talk about govt censorship.
Now you have posted three comments about how you are talking only about India and not America, which is a bunch of bull **** since Internet is heavily affected by what happens in America and you article regularly talks about companies governed by American law.
There is currently no Network Neutrality bills in Indian parliament(which makes me wonder why did you even bother to write about it, why not directly talk about Internet Censorship), Net Neutrality movement is NOT BASED in India, there isn’t even a single organization working for Net Neutrality in India. So why take refuge of “Govt Censorship of Internet” if you were talking about that to start with.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pmThis whole comment section is an attempt to demand an explanation of why do you think Network neutrality is desired(of course you don’t want govt to do it, but you do want it).
Basically, the things are so simple that there is no need to give any ‘extra’ explaination.
Check out Indian Cyberlaws at Cyberlawsindia.net http://www.cyberlawsindia.net/lawyering.html
Another major area of interest is net neutrality, which affects the regulation of the infrastructure of the Internet. Though not obvious to most Internet users, every packet of data sent and received by every user on the Internet passes through routers and transmission infrastructure owned by a collection of private and public entities, including telecommunications companies, universities, and governments, suggesting that the Internet is not as independent as Barlow and others would like to believe. This is turning into one of the most critical aspects of cyber law and has immediate jurisdictional implications, as laws in force in one jurisdiction have the potential to have dramatic effects in other jurisdictions when host servers or telecommunications companies are affected.
Just below it, there is a proper section of freedom of speech which even discusses about the last blockage of googleblogs by government.
I don’t care about the terms you are used to. I am talking of neutrality on internet over any issue, be it charge, or some contentious issue, the authorities including government ISP’s and engines, must remain neutral.
furthermore, I don’t want to pay a single rupee to any ISP or any government for opening up a site i make and design. It is simple.
Net Neutrality is not an issue which is not important for India, and on Indian conditions, it doesn’t matter if government makes a net-neutrality law or doesn’t make. it properly controlls internet and ISP’s and search engines without or with any neutrality law.
Why I started this thread? Cos I came to know about net neutrality issue from the Indian Cyber law pages.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pmWhat do I mean when I say the government the ISP’s and search engines should remain neutral?
Well yes they should remain neutral because that is the best approach.
Let the market decide it.
If market supports discrimination in prices based on traffic on a site, let it be the process, but if even a single ISp starts thinking for the benefitmof end net users and denies taking discrriminatory charges, I am sure it will gain maximum users and hence will make maximum profits. But then it will be the market force as the decider.
Similarly, even on the issue of discrimination on the basis of content, government ISP’s and Search engines should remain “Neutral”, although it is not so in India.
As for example, many Delhi based newspapers advertise the massage parlors; and in few cases even show the ‘therapeutic masseurs’ hidden behind the mask, who actually are prostitutes. Delhi Police has been successful in busting out a few such rackets but then it is not sure of the action it can take…should it arrest the owners and editors of newspapers or wait for some new clauses in the Act to be added up?? Even the much hyped case of the arrest of Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, was a consequence of this particular ambiguity of the law. One cannot expect an ISP to monitor what information their subscribers are sending out, all 24 hours a day.
Obviously, I want government, ISP’s and other authorities remain neutral and not to restrict any material being advertized or publicized in common space even by slowing down net services for certain kinds of net-content.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pmrenegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pmTania is talking about Virgin, the company.http://stopvirgin.movielol.org/ one the largest ISP of UK, and one of the most aggressive anti-Net Neutrality advocates.
Anyways you have to make it clear whether you are joining the Net Neutrality movement, or anti-Net Neutrality movement.
Net Neutrality movement is a very cleverly mislabeled movement, its actually all about regulating the Internet.
The illusion of Net Neutrality
And I am trying to explain you this from last 10 comments, but in your bone head it just doesn’t get in. Plus you are more afraid of being proven wrong than anything, so you keep on repeating that you meant “Net should be neutral from the censorship of the govt”. That’s not even the meaning of the term Neutral. Cut the bullcrap, stop redefining the terms.
You are like first claim A is B, then claim, but I am not talking about THAT B, I am talking about this B which is actually A, therefore, what I meant was A is A.
renegade_division Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pmDon’t Regulate the Internet
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pmSince the start of this post, My stand is pretty clear.
I Don’t want any legislation any law for net-neutrality, Market force should decide it.
I support net-neutrality because it is Individual independenc supportive. And the ISP which will folow net-neutrality will gain more consumers. (thats an assumption, it can go wrong).
Tania is not from UK but I guess you even don’t know about it and Tania doesnot uses any virgin ISP provider.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pmDon’t Regulate the Internet
Obviously, they will become a mere tool of government authorities to see and control what to provide the citizens and what to restrict on a major part.
So yes don’t regulate internet.
So, although it seems to be genuine on the part of the broadband providers if they demand charges from the content providers to let their traffic free flow, yet, basically it would be anti-liberal for the Individual user. Furthermore, the work of broadband providers is to provide free flow of the traffic for which they charge the individual consumers. Any try by any broadband provider to control the traffic will distort the freedom of the user.
Is there any need for a law to protect the net neutrality?
Out of many broadband providers, if any single one provides free-traffic, it will gain maximum of the users. So basically, net neutrality is the principle which is automatically protected by the principles of free-market. But what if the government itself starts controlling the content traffic?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pmSo yes don’t regulate Internet.
SD Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 2:26 amInternet is a platform for an unhindered expression of one’s mentality. There’s no other alternative.
Save the internet. Save the World !
renegade_division Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 4:49 amHow is it any different from the sham “Save the Planet(by giving govt unlimited power on private properties)” is?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 7:01 amHow is it any different from the sham “Save the Planet (by giving govt unlimited power on private properties)” is?
It certainly is no different. That is why there should not be any legislation or law like that, No law no government can save it because government itself is the possible destroyer.
But the government is destroyer in both ways. In countries like India where there “actually” is no primary rights for the capital, where the government can force a private company to employ according to the government’s reservation policies, where even in private medical and engineering college government can force subsidies and scholarships to the minority students (minority based on religion”) there it is surely visible that ISP’s are in proper control of government and they meant to be.
And in such case, irrespective of any net-neutrality law, net is not free, neither for ISP providers, nor for the search engines and obviously not for the citizens. It is owned by government. And it won’t be surprising but surely a disaster if tomorrow someone like our present health minister starts dictating that there should not be any commercial promoting smoking, who will oppose it?
Wouldn’t it be in the hands of ISP’s to avoid traffic of those sites and products which the government (the director of the ISP’s) finds offensive or ill for the society?
Where a simple district collector can issue imprisonment of a cable operator just because on the demand of public, the operator tried to show a porne on the cable city channel after 12 am night. So what can the central government minister do if they decided to do against the freedom of internet? Will they remain neutral regarding Internet?
renegade_division Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 11:01 amWell I disagree with that subjective viewpoint of private property rights.
ISPs have complete right to block any information access to you, because its their private property right. If you don’t like that, don’t subscribe to them, or buy your property and serve yourself with Net whichever way you like.
If you think govt controls ISPs, well then its a constitutional problem, and its on a much larger scale than that. The Free speech rights are not completely awarded to the individual in India.
Saying “ISPs must be neutral” is not the same as “Govt must stop restricting free speech”.
Free speech rights are basically private property rights. Your right to free speech does not extend on my property. If you wanna publish on my newspaper I have a full right to censor anything I want. In fact even in India you can’t go to a court claiming that a Newspaper or a TV channel refuse to print or voice your opinion calling it a violation of free speech.
Demanding ISPs must be neutral is like saying I must not dump by girlfriend, or I must not urinate on my carpet. Saying that I act on the instructions govt when I pee on my carpet, still does not give you a right to demand I must not pee on my carpet.
ISPs in India follow govt rules and regulations. I hardly think Network Neutrality is a substitute of the term “Free Speech”. So please for the love of God stop using Network Neutrality for Free Speech, nobody gives a damn to what is your definition of Network Neutrality, if you are making a blog post for common people, use commonly accepted terms, and according to that, Network Neutrality means govt interferences in private property. Net Neutrality is anti-private property.
Before you ask the question “Wouldn’t it be in the hands of ISP’s to avoid traffic of those sites and products which the government (the director of the ISP’s) finds offensive or ill for the society?” think whether it does even make any sense? Its already IN THE HANDS of ISPs to block any content they want, which they generally NOT DO it, rather do it whatever govt tells them to. Govt has in past made ISPs in India block numerous website. Net Neutrality IS NOT THE SOLUTION!
And in the end you gotta make it clear, are you an objectively pro-property rights person, or anti-property rights person, or a subjectively pro-property rights person. Because an objectively pro-Property rights person cannot say “I support property rights, but in this situation, since the things are quite in a mess, I am against property rights” that’s a subjective view of property rights.
Lets say if someone holds a gun on my head and demands to format my hard disk, then you can’t say that I don’t have a right to format my hard disk because someone is holding a gun on my head, rather you must always acknowledge my right to format my hard disk and must try to get rid of that gun.
poo Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 11:04 amI don’t understand why every single campaign has to pass the big sex barrier. anyways, big west blow..
the concept of bring net free? ask a net user..
do you pay for your internet connection? (ISPs)
do you pay to watch/get specific contents? (Paid docs/or movies/sex whatever)
how do you use internet in your regular life? (what is that ur interested in ? )
a content provider has full rights to put it as paid or free. and service providers’ job is to provide the service and thats it. there could be soem legalities between the content and the service provider (usually low rate). but a user has nothing to do with it.
defending internet. well.. there is something called society.. everything runs on some rules.. imagine the traffic with out rules.. signals. and thats the job of the authorities. rules could be altered/changed as the society grows. same rule applies here too. what content is viewed at what time.. and where.. is important atleast as a citizen we supposed to follow some rules.. and following rules doesnt always mean that your’ nt free.
renegade_division Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 11:20 amThere is nothing to imagine, 90% of the Indian traffic I have dealt with follows no rule, and no signals. I know people grown up in West find it really hard to imagine what would people do without rules.
For example one of my friend could not believe that there are no cops in cars chasing people who speed in India, nor there are many comps trying to stop people from breaking rules. He kind of expected “complete Anarchy” in traffic in India. Yet, people in India manage themselves on road without that many accidents.
The reason why you think there will be chaos without rules is because you are made to follow so many rules you don’t like that if there is someone not watching you try to break the rule. But do you break the rule because you wanna harm other people?
Here is a youtube video of traffic in Hyderabad, which most of my statist, rule loving American friends have called fake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JYjG_S8XJM4
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 5:21 amI support property rights, but in this situation, since the things are quite in a mess, I am against property rights” that’s a subjective view of property rights.
You again messed it up.
You should understand that there is no property right. And I am not talking of Net neutrsality, I am talking of Net neutrality in India. I am not opposing property rights, I am showing that its government who holds the rights and not the individual.
It even doesn’t matter if you make a net-neutrality law or not, government will keep exploiting the net because it is not neutral, so question of I supporting net neutrality law demand even doesn’t exists, My stand is, its useless, and there is no need of law. Market should decide it. Even if a single ISP provider decided to charge same from all traffic uploaders and broswers, it will gain maximum users because from the view of net-users it is more easy way rather than shifting their preferences. So even in a free-market, the market force will decide whether te trend should be of net neutrality or not.
And if the market demands net neutrality, then either the private ISPs will accept it or they are free to deny it but it will cause them loss of users and hence loss of profits.
There is no question of legislation over net-neutrality subject and there should not be.
Furthermore, Why and how can an ISP force google or yahoo to buy better services than the normal by paying high?
What is the need for yahoo or google to buy more speeding up width than a normal blog?
And if some site owner wants better facilities, it can surely use it.
The ISP’s can surely announce the various price tags with the services to be provided, an it will be freedom of the browser services to buy whatever slot they want to.
Just because Google makes high profits and people uses it, if any ISP is slowing it down, then it is wrong. The ISP provider may give better facilities for someone who pays more, it should not restrict google or other browsers b slowing their sites down even though they have paid for the normal.
And if they do so, then it is wrong.
You cannot ask for more price just because the buyer is rich.
If he is not demanding better facilities, you cannot force him to buy better facilities and pay high.
renegade_division Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 6:36 amBecause its the ISPs property Google and Yahoo are using.
That’s a totally different question, and its technical in nature.
Sure you can, that is the whole point of property rights. What the hell is wrong with you? I can ask any price for my services from anyone, otherwise are you suggesting price control? And as long as you will keep on talking in terms of “CAN” and “CANNOT”, yes I can ask $100 to sell you my bike, and I can ask $100,000 from Bil Gate for the same bike. If you wanna use the words “SHOULD” “SHOULD NOT”(which are basically like suggestions, rather than morality implying words), then its a different issue.
Unless you are suggesting an Objective theory of value? That would be a different matter. Prices are always Subjective, and are governed by Subjective theory of value.
Here is what happened, you got caught up into Google’s Net Neturality rhetoric “Net Neutrality is about Free Speech and Liberty. ISPs will get the power to censor websites without Net Neutrality”, now being a Libertarian you did take the right approach in saying that Govt must not be allowed to regulate the Internet, but you ended up defending Net Neutrality in this post, after all which Libertarian would support censorship. Unfortunately the truth is different. Network Neutrality does not mean no-govt censorship it means no-ISP censorship. Now your whole position on Net Neutrality is getting more and more convoluted while you are making vain attempt to avoid accepting that you made a mistake.
ISPs own their property and they can block anyone, and anybody’s service. Its their property right. I don’t think you need lessons in property rights, and please stop doing it in your vain attempts defend your position. Just accept the mistake and move on.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 7:22 amSure you can, that is the whole point of property rights. What the hell is wrong with you? I can ask any price for my services from anyone, otherwise are you suggesting price control?
Nothing is wrong with me, whatever is wrong is wrong in your bug brain.
So you will demand higher price from a guy just because he is richer, it is similar to demanding higher insurance premiums from the rich guy just because he is rich for the same insurance policy.
Its idiotic.
You can provide various schemes for uploading material on net with various price tags and responding facilities you will provide.
You canot state that if you are earning Rs1 lakh per annum than you have to pay Rs 10000/- for using net, and if you are earning Rs 10000/- per annum than you have to pay Rs 10/- you cannot set price related to the buyers earning.
You can set price for the facilities you provide for a product.
Now its on the buyers choice if he buy lower facilities or better facilities.
For example, a hotellier may make different rooms with various facilities. like AC doublesuits, executives rooms, general rooms, etc, the buyer is free to buy whatever he feels the need of.
No hotellier can force a buyer to buy a special suit services for a period just because the buyer is rich.
No insurance company can charge higher premiums just because the client is rich.
Premiums can be decided only on risk factors involved, rent of hotel rooms can be discriminated only on the facilities involved.
If a rich person demands a general room, the hotellier will be entitled for only the price of general room used by the rich guy.
He cannot demand extra just because the guy was rich.
WHy are you getting so communistic?
Why do you want to loot rich?
You have some property, and you are selling it.
You decide the prices on the basis of facilities involved with the property. Higher facilities costs high, lower facilities costs low.
If a rich guy don’t want to buy higher facilities he want to use lower facilities only, you cannot force him to give away his right to buy higher facilities.
You may simply deny selling him though if you can afford it.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 7:30 amRenegade open your ******** indoctrinated mind.
You are simply wrong.
You have no right to force a guy to buy higher facilities when he don’t want to. If you do so, then it is just socialistic. Like the rich should pay more taxes to use public infrastructure while the poor may use it free.
Its ****.
I doesn’t matter what my bank balance is, if in a private air line, I want to buy an economic class ticket, then no air lines can deny me to buy the cheaper seat on account of my bank balance being high.
They may deny me that they don’t sell tickets to rich people, but they cannot force me to pay for the facilities of high class if I don’t want those facilities.
If in train i want to travell in general bogie, than the train owner cannot force me to pay for AC ticket just because i am rich.
Although he may say that he won’t sell general bogie tickets for rich.
That is, in his private train he can deny or bann general bogie tickets for rich guy and deny him to enjoy travelling in a general bogie. But he cannot force him to pay for AC ticket when he just don’t want to travell in AC bogie.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 7:34 amIf ISp’s dont want yahoo and google to use same facilities as I use for my blog, they can simply deny yahoo or google giving services.
Yahoo and google or anybody else will surely tackle the situation and solve their problems by someway or other, but that ISp will loose all its profits and will go down to limits of “vanished”.
renegade_division Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 5:22 amI just want to make this clear, do you think a seller has a RIGHT to charge any amount of money from anyone on any criteria or not?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 5:56 amWhy not? He has right to demand, The buyer has right to bargain.
goofle, yahoo, msn etc are bargaining to have same facilities as i have for my blog. They don’t want any better facilities. Seller cannot force them to buy better facilities (hence charge more) he cannot force them to pay higher for same facilities for which I pay less.
Still, seller can deny selling to yahoo, google and MSN, its his freedom, but can it afford that?
If it can, then he can sure deny giving yahoo google MSN to give any facility on same charges at which I use.
MSN, Google,Yahoo will surely innovate some better way or will break some ISP at some point which wont believe in this mad idea of self-hurt by ISP’s.
Simple thing is, it should be decided by Marker forces and not by government and Market forces will simply suggest the ISP to give up their unreasonable attitude. But if they denies giving up, they have proper right to harm their interests and profits by denying google,yahoo,msn etc to give normal services at normal price. But in noway the ISP can force search engines to take better service and pay high if they don’t want.
Nor ISP’s have any right to dislocate or slow down any site if they have accepted it in their normal domain as per contract.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pmRenegade its you who have been messed up.
i wish you get someway to get above your indoctrinated problems. What may cause you to leave your cult system which keeps indocgrinating wrong wrong and only wrong?
“NO ISP must do this, no ISP must do that”?
Because thats what the freedom is. If I have a contracct, it has a value, if the contract is breached, Either I will get the due (pre-decided) compensation and investment back, or the act will considered as treason.
About your rantings i am deleting every comment of yours because I don’t want your cult feelings to be shown here.
Yes anyone can be wrong at anytime and you are wrong here.
Accept it or don’t accept it it actually doesn’t matters much now.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pmI might have appreciated if you had given better arguments, but you are head still.
You just cannot express your reason properly.
Have you even for a second, thought of the situations of private roads?
Can a private road owner charge equal for all vehicles running on his road irrespective of what vehicle or weight carried by the vehicle carries?
Or will the road owner take different charges from different vehicle users, like trucks with goods transport will pay different toll charges while a cycle user will pay different (may use free too). A car driver will pay higher than a scooter driver etc…
Doesn’t it sound genuine?
What is a net facility if it is not road to information?
And what is load on it? The search engines and websites are the transporters, information is load.
Obviously the ISPs have proper right to ask for different charges from different users dependent on the load they transports, or the usage they do of the road like internet services.
Now all seems ok. Obviously, why should a bicycle buyer pay same as a transport truck or driver is paying?
Yet, the deal can only be in accordance with the bargain between truck transporters and the road owner.
Road owner cannot force truck drivers to pay more than a cycle user. Though he can argue and bargain and if not accepted than he can deny transport buses/trucks through his roads.
At present, all over world wherever there are no private roads but just public roads, the government takes differentiated and discriminated charges from various users on roads depending on their vehicle and loads.
How can government make a law against its own procedure? It cannot and it should not. And if it do so, it is idiotic.
Chandria Says:
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 amBlocking or restricting the the Internet by Governments can in some cases allowed them to Brainwash their people by given them false information about threats from other countries. The governments saying that certain countries are threatening them and population not having access to information or web sites so their people can have the opportunity to read for themselves. This can also be a two way thing where things happen like in Burma who had a major disaster when they had a cyclone that killed millions and left millions homeless and hungry, but was not willing to allow much contact from the outside world, even though some seemed to get online and leave comments giving different picture then their Government gave, they did not want foreigners their but they wanted our money, but i suppose with the net if their are donations sent to disaster areas you have a greater opportunity to see that the money is going to the people who need it and not in the pockets of the rich or the government
I think that their should be some way of monitoring the net to make sure people remain as safe as possible. Things that hurt people or abuse them should be banned like pedophilia sites and violence to other living things. I know their has been a raise of people using sites like YouTube to show home made videos of people beating others up or trying to do dangerous stunts that can injure themselves or innocent by standers, but the people who run these sites have a duty to monitor what is paced their. Not governments. It also seems that Mr & Mrs average also blame the net for teaching their children bad habits. It seems to be the done thing now a days to look at outside influences as reasons why today children are more violent or caring knives or stealing. It seems easy to blame not only the net but T.V and games. and i think this is what could harm the Internet. You get bands of people who when things go wrong would rather blame outside influences then themselves. It is so much easier to blame the game they played or the film they watched or the Internet site they accessed. It doesn’t seem to matter that the game was a 18 rated and its should be their parents who monitor what their children play. I know a shop would not sale a game of say 18 rating to a 6 or 7 year old but if their parents buy it then its their responsibility. Same with films we here have a 9pm watershed which basically stops programs with adult content before that time. Same with the net parents should know what their children are doing on the net they can block sites. But this seems to be forgotten. Its surprising how many rational people get stirred up about this type of thing. I suppose its more so when elections are coming round so much easier to shut sites down or even chat rooms like MSN has done here in the UK, it seems no one said parents should be responsible not the provider, and its a easier problem to solve then, inflation unemployment, and the million other things wrong. Use the unimportant things to cloud the real issues, after all most ordinary people don’t really understand economics’s
So i think the net should be able to police themselves, but it will also need a outside body to make sure that site do remove unsuitable material and fine them if they don’t. As far as net speed goes as demand grows then the net speed slows down, and companies that give cheaper deals or a faster speed net will be more popular so will run slower at peak times, i have a fast speed broadband but between 6pm and 9 pm its speed is reduced for high users so that people who only use net for a small amount of time can use the net without it being slow. I think the net is a fairly new way to communicate, and demand in some areas has out weighed availability, or the way to connect to net has not really been designed to handle the large demands. Phone lines where designed for one purpose, and now they are being asked to deal with a larger amount of traffic, and in some areas it may get worse as demand rises quicker then the ability to improve the system by using separate ways other then phone lines, like cable, but we must remember that some areas haven’t got electric, even here in UK a Island in Scotland has only just been connected to the National Grid, so things like having a Internet connection maybe lower on the list of needs.
The net can be used as a teaching medium, as access grows and computers get cheaper then people who may not have access to schools can also be given the chance of a proper education. It can be used a a chosen time, rather then a school day. So children or even adults can learn that may not have a chance normally through other commitments, having education or even just being able to read and write can open more doors. I know of people who have taught themselves another language by just using a dictionary, it was the sheer determination that pushed them on. The net also gives the chance to learn about other cultures not only by using the web, but by the chance of talking to people and hopefully it will help people get on with each other as well as getting information first hand from people who live in these countries. So maybe instead of moaning about government restricting access to net, i am sure most can still get to these sites by some backdoor, or the speed your Internet runs. Imagine what its like to be truly disadvantaged, that not only is you net filtered, but that your life is so controlled that if you do access a banned site or look at the wrong web site you could end up in jail or worse. People disappear every day. We are FREE to think and write what we want without fear of having our homes raided in the middle of the night and having our families hauled away, never to be seen again. I think fighting for that FREEDOM is more important. So we should count our blessings that we have the freedom to surf the net without fear and voice our opinions without fear of loosing our freedom
Chandria Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 amNet neutrality, am i missing what that means? To me its means the net should not be able to give opion on a subject. If i want to talk about my religious or political convictions i should be allowed, without what i say being censored, and bits cut out. I think the anything goes attitude is a little scarey. I mean does that mean i can go out tomorrow and take a video camera and kill a few people and put it on the net??? Or maybe go out and rape someone. The net still needs to stay within the law. It can’t have cart-blanc and say its allowed because the net is neuatrul. If that happened it would be the key for every mental or even sane peorson to try to better videos that appear on the net. You only got to see what has gotten on YouTube to see that the net is above the law is plain crazy. Yes their should be no form of sensor to stop me saying what i feel about politics or religion which i think is probably two subject open to being cut or even banned, but the net still needs to be policed in some way. It still needs rules.
renegade_division Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 amIt means various stuff to various people. Technically Network Neutrality means every bit transferred through the net must be treated equally. Without Net Neutrality the ISPs have the power to slow down any traffic to prioritize a more paying content provider.
It has nothing to do with censorship because at least in America, Americans hate censorship, any company who censors **** is seen as dictatorial and will quickly lose its business.
Its MADE about censorship by the marketing team of Google and Yahoo. If net neutrality laws are in effect govt will have a power over the Internet, in the name of say “neutralize” the Internet, they will restrict stuff. Even Supreme Court says that free speech in America does not means people have a right to transfer and view Child porn. So it won’t be surprising that govt might start restricting content.
The pro-Net neutrality perspective:
The “Don’t regulate the Internet” or “Hands off the Internet” perspective:
renegade_division Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 am@Chandria said:
That sounds like a very lame argument. Its a crime of murder, and rape respectively, it has nothing to do with the fact that the video was uploaded on the Internet, in fact its like announcing the crime.
What has internet regulation to do with the fact that people are killing and raping each other?
Chandria Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 amSurely the speed the net runs depends on how many are using it a a certain time. How you connect to the net, and the speed your provider provides. I use a 10 mb connection and they are trialing 50 mb connections. What differance will that make to people useing a phone line to make a connection to the net or people using a slower speed connection. Isn’t it all about technoligy, and how many people can log on at the same time to their server. I know at peak times my server slows the internet to high users between 6pm and 9pm. I accept that and i think most people would do. You can run a house full of appliances from one electrical socket it will over load.
renegade_division Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pmIts not about bandwidth Chandria, what you are talking about is speed through bandwidth. Bandwidth is usually sold as a consistent package. Cheaper Internet plans are usually provided by distribute limited bandwidth among various subscribers, or high-end Internet plans are usually provided with allocating a dedicated line for you.
Net Neutrality is irrespective of these issues. The issue of Net neutrality deals about prioritizing one bit over the other. One data packet over the other.
For example if data from Gmail and Hotmail both come in the queue, then an ISP has the power of prioritizing Gmail over Hotmail. So despite of Network congestion, GMail’s service will come out smooth. With Net Neutrality laws ISPs will be forced to use FCFS or some other non-discriminatory technology to transfer the data.
I mean imagine this, your net is really slow, but somehow GMail gets awesome speed. Unfortunately this example does not have emotional appeal. Have this one, your net is slow during the peak hours, but your stock market updates are coming out in time to you. Or since you have paid, so your daughter’s live video feed from her dorm room is coming out in real time.
Telecom companies won’t reduce the speed of your Internet that every website you visit will be slow, because that will incentivise you to not ge their services at all, rather:
1) Your regular data will come at regular speed, that is, if its peak hours, then it will be slow, if its off peak then it will be fast.
2) The web services which pay more to the ISPs will be continously fast even in peak or off-peak hours.
3) The non-paying competing websites will continue to perform lousily in peak hours.
The point is, no ISP will block this blog, because its pointless, this blog does not represent some sort of heavy payment company to the ISP.
No ISP will block any News website or anything like that either, because again, that’s something users require.
But commercial web applications and web services will suffer in terms of performance because of this.
Again no ISP will block anything rather only consider it as a regular traffic or deprioritize it.
For example, Google search will be faster than Yahoo search, or vice versa. GMail will be faster than Yahoo Mail.
Orkut might be faster than Facebook. AOL videos will be streamed quicker than Youtube videos.
Why? Because there is a competition between these two entities these both entities are making MASSIVE amount of money off the Internet, these revenues will come down to the web content publishers.
No ISP will block the websites on a paid Internet connection, but only on highly sponsered free Internet connections competiting web services will be blocked.
Now would you mind using an Internet connection if Hotmail is not available, or very slow to access if its sponsored completely by GMail and is free?
Chandria Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 10:42 amFree??? I doubt anything is ” Free” on the net even if its not costing you pounds or dollars or any other currency. You pay by your personal information. What sites you access so that coumpanies can send you junk emails. I know you can adjust your cookies to restrict how many get the information on the first hand, but no doubt those companies will sale your information to the ones you block and more so i don’t think any site on the internet is “Free”
As far as Emails go i am a Yahoo Gal and i doubt i’ll change even when it won’t let me access or runs slow