Woz to FCC: Keep the Internet Free

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I read this editorial written by Steve Wozniak and, while I am not really sure, I think he is talking about keeping the internet free....or being mad about registering for the draft...or inventing dial-a-joke a service...or installing satellite TV....or driving on roads (made with our tax dollars for free:

What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove? It would be fair and understandable to charge more for someone who drives more. But one of the most wonderful things in our current life is getting in the car and driving anywhere we feel like at this moment, and with no accounting for cost. You just get in your car and go. This is one of the most popular themes of our life and even our popular music. It's a type of freedom from some concerns that makes us happy and not complain. The roads are already paid for. You rarely hear people complain that roads are "free
 

H@RD5

Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
689
But Woz, everyone knows the only way to have the world work is for the government to regulate everything!:rolleyes:
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
I'm really big on free market principles. Big against over-regulation, especially in cases when more harm is done than good.

But arguments that network companies should should be treated as in a free market (where we just let them run amock) seems absurd when there is no such thing as a free market in the first place (i.e. networks running local monopolies).

Maybe if we kick them off their monopoly contracts, then we let them see how they handle "running amock" in the free market.
 

Nickbaldwin86

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,135
The internet isn't free...I just paid $54 for my high speed internet monthly bill ;)

Oh and we do pay for our roads to be paved per mile.... who are these idiots that write this stuff?

They ever heard of a gas tax?????? gas is taxed to pave roads and pay for other forms or transportation.
 

msny

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,197
So how long will it take the FCC, to barge into our homes
and tell us how to run our computer networks?

The clock has started ticking on the freedom the net
has provided. We have taken it for granted. But now,
for the first time, were being told its not running
right.

Who says that?
Politicians, and you can't trust them, so were screwed.

Internet 2, where are you?
 

Phatal

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
130
If roads are free then I want the portion of my money back I have paid via federal, state, and local taxes (including tolls) that was supposed to be paying for these roads. Roads are free? Give me break.
 

Diseaseboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
1,206
You guys even have a clue what is going on right now? Look up Net Neutrality. They want to treat the net like cable tv- you may have to pay for tiered service. You want access to eBay or Amazon? That's an extra $10.00 month. You want to have access to great cpu sites like Hardocp and Anandtech? Well...you have to pay another $10.00 a month for a cpu hardware website package? You want to host a website? That will be $19.99 a month for limited access- what? You want people who use AT&T dsl to have access to your website? That will be another $10.00 a month... That is what this may turn into. Scary IMHO. The government "regulation" should be that there be no regulation and left alone.
 

Pepsiennis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
1,290
Agreed: retract their monopolies and the idea of charging per site or per byte would never enter their head. I live in China, which gets more than its fair share of criticism for net policies, but no one here would stand for such a scheme. Net neutrality is literally an issue of one's right to communicate. If it is funneled by gouging charges, then one's communicative rights are artificially regulated. Now, if this served some socially redeeming purpose (such as social stability), then it could be considered. But since it's only to line a paltry few monopolistic companies' pockets, it is an untenable proposition. Net neutrality is a clear and profound extension of the right to free speech; its 21st Century iteration. It is odd and absurd that what Ma Bell got away with for so many years, and which the government did a half-assed job of breaking up as monopolistic practices, has been allowed to flourish since we were all kids. 'We the people' my ass: it's 'They the Few', and make no mistake about it.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
His analogy doesn't work though, cause big internet companies already pay for their bandwidth...

It would be more like if you had to pay per mile while driving but then you had to pay an additional fee to get through every time there is traffic congestion. If you didn't pay that additional fee, you'd have to sit in traffic so long that eventually you'd just turn around and go home in frustration...
 

Pepsiennis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
1,290
It is clear that Net neutrality is in the best interests of American citizens, so relocation shouldn't be a viable option. Though a thriving economy is a necesity, it is the clear that the government's primary obligation is to work in the best interests of its citizens. if it doesn't, there is an atrophying of personal rights that immediately puts the Constitution into question. And there we shall not go.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
the government's primary obligation is to work in the best interests of its citizens.

Quoted the most important part.

If only every Represenative and Senator knew, spoke, and acted in this belief.

Their blatantly obvious concerns are but 2 things:

1. Winning the next election
2. Making the other side look bad to help with #1

The good of the country and its people are a distant third.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,286
Quoted the most important part.

If only every Represenative and Senator knew, spoke, and acted in this belief.

Their blatantly obvious concerns are but 2 things:

1. Winning the next election
2. Making the other side look bad to help with #1

The good of the country and its people are a distant third.

more like 4th 3rd is setting up a nice cushy job should they fail 1.
 

LittleMeEgo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
189
What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove? It would be fair and understandable to charge more for someone who drives more. But one of the most wonderful things in our current life is getting in the car and driving anywhere we feel like at this moment, and with no accounting for cost. You just get in your car and go.

I don't see that analogy fitting the NN issue. But, being able to drive and not pay per mile encourages overuse of our roads. This is a major contributor to the rush hour traffic nightmare across our country in the bigger cities. There's no strong incentive for the authorities to optimize the roads because there's no profit incentive. Also it's a subsidy for polluting vehicles. If we paid for the roads per mile the system would work better.

Fail argument Woz.
 

Killahurtz

Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
671
I like all the "pro gubment" folks spewing their "examples" of what "could happen"...so far NONE of the gubments assertions (or these regulation loving posters) have happened or are "about to" happen...the free market weeds out the stupidity if allowed to do so. Sure you get companies or service providers that stretch their "requirements" , like some of the cell phone companies have done with exclusivety , but people make choices and don't buy something that smells like a bad deal. The nanny state lovers are alive and well , that's for sure.
 

jfreund

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,440
Make internet access a free market, and the need for net neutrality rules will go away. If given the choice, consumers will pick a neutral provider.

However, the current state is NOT a free market. When you only have 2 choices for "broadband" service (which may or may not meet the current definition of broadband), and both providers are already or are considering throttling, capping, segmenting, or tiering service, the consumer gets screwed. If a corporation gets to cut deals with government that keep out competition, then the corporation absolutely should be subject to regulation to prevent abuse of their government-granted position in the market.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,459
What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove?
Hey, when the Prius started getting popular law makers started thinking about doing just that due to "extreme loss in tax revenue" (gas tax).. yet somehow I didn't see gas taxes drop a dime when SUVs became so prevalent and the average car MPG rating dropped to pre-70s levels.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
Hey, when the Prius started getting popular law makers started thinking about doing just that due to "extreme loss in tax revenue" (gas tax).. yet somehow I didn't see gas taxes drop a dime when SUVs became so prevalent and the average car MPG rating dropped to pre-70s levels.

Well yeah, when costs go up prices go up. When costs go down they stay the same. Thats how it works.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
2,470
You guys even have a clue what is going on right now? Look up Net Neutrality. They want to treat the net like cable tv- you may have to pay for tiered service. You want access to eBay or Amazon? That's an extra $10.00 month. You want to have access to great cpu sites like Hardocp and Anandtech? Well...you have to pay another $10.00 a month for a cpu hardware website package? You want to host a website? That will be $19.99 a month for limited access- what? You want people who use AT&T dsl to have access to your website? That will be another $10.00 a month... That is what this may turn into. Scary IMHO. The government "regulation" should be that there be no regulation and left alone.

That's what the propaganda says. Yet all this time there hasn't been anything keeping them from doing it, and they never did.... even though you say they wanted to.
Maybe you should think about that one for a minute.
 

Fershlugg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
461
I have paid thousands of dollars in road tolls, roads I have no choice but to drive.

are you sure? Are you saying that someone is forcing you to drive those roads? Wrong question... Do you NEED to drive those roads?
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
But Woz, everyone knows the only way to have the world work is for the government to regulate everything!:rolleyes:

Fail troll is fail.

Next time RTFA, in this case Woz is begging to FCC to regulate the internet so that net neutrality is mandatory. He even says this:

We have very few government agencies that the populace views as looking out for them, the people. The FCC is one of these agencies that is still wearing a white hat. Not only is current action on Net Neutrality one of the most important times ever for the FCC, it's probably the most momentous and watched action of any government agency in memorable times in terms of setting our perception of whether the government represents the wealthy powers or the average citizen, of whether the government is good or is bad. This decision is important far beyond the domain of the FCC itself.

And to all those saying net neutrality is worried about something that will never happen, IT ALREADY HAS HAPPENED to some extent. Various ISPs have *ALREADY* throttled various connections, Comcast caught a ton of flack over it when they did it with bittorrent. Also, if ISPs had no plans to create a tiered internet, then why are they fighting net neutrality so hard?

Likewise, all you saying the "free market will prevent this from happening" need to wake the fuck up. THERE IS NO FREE MARKET FOR INTERNET ACCESS. Both legally and logistically ISPs have monopolies in their areas. And no, fixing that will not fix the net neutrality problem, because the cost to build your own fiber network for even a couple of blocks is very expensive, very disruptive to the people living there, and will end up being a clusterfuck of networks. ISP monopolies simply are and will continue to be, we might as well at least prevent the ISPs from fucking us over.
 

Trombe

Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
891
No Blocking: Wired broadband providers may not block any lawful content, applications or services. Wireless broadband providers are not required to allow all applications and services, but may not block any lawful Websites applications that compete with its telephony or video service. This is all subject to "reasonable network management."

No Discrimination: Wired broadband providers may not speed up or slow down individual types of lawful traffic, with exceptions for reasonable network management. No such rules apply to wireless broadband.

Emphasis mine, and this is the problem with the "Net Neutrality" rulings: the concessions made by the FCC to wireless internet providers is absolute fucking bullshit.
 

Dylan80

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
1,850
Change the title to.....

All of America(except Comcast Corp.) to FCC: "Keep the internet free"
 

TheWeazmeister

<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
3,346
Maybe if we kick them off their monopoly contracts, then we let them see how they handle "running amock" in the free market.


^^ this :D Deregulate and let's see what happens. If we are going to be a free market economy, open it up, give true options for people to pick and let's see who comes out on top.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
2,470
And to all those saying net neutrality is worried about something that will never happen, IT ALREADY HAS HAPPENED to some extent. Various ISPs have *ALREADY* throttled various connections, Comcast caught a ton of flack over it when they did it with bittorrent. Also, if ISPs had no plans to create a tiered internet, then why are they fighting net neutrality so hard?

Oh no, don't throttle the warez! Even the 2009 Net neutrality bill would have allowed Comcast to throttle BT. That's just "reasonable network management."
As for your last question, its premise is flawed, as you assume that tiered plans and resisting Net Neutrality are somehow related in any way. It sounds like Glenn Beck when he blabs about Obama's birth certificate.

But you don't gripe about ISPs that use QoS, or port 25 being blocked, you gripe about Comcast and BitTorrent?
Interesting dogs to put in the fight.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
1
I think the road analogy is perfect…
… of course the last great innovation in road building was the autobahn 70+ years ago…
Meanwhile, without bureaucratic intervention the internet has managed to revolutionize all of our lives.
I’m sure that our grandchildren will be thankful that the government officials will allow them to use the same internet that we are using.
Now, granted… without government regulation, we will have to put up with idiots and a$$holes, we will have to deal with people trying to rip us off… and OMG, we will have to use our own minds and make decisions for ourselves, we will have to decide with who and where we will spend our money. The horror of it all…
And… note, where are all of those automatic roads that we were promised when we dreamed of a future society?? Oh, wait… the government hasn’t ‘given’ them to us with those ‘free roads’…
 
Top