Anyone see this article?

[rich34]

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6374886


"So you might think the unlikely Web phenom, who got an enthusiastic reception when he spoke Friday to about 250 Google employees, plus 100 sent to an overflow room, would be the technology industry's best friend.

Not so.

He said he does not support network neutrality, the concept that telecommunications companies should be restricted from controlling broadband access to the detriment of Web companies like Google, nor does he support tech-friendly immigration reforms in Congress recently."

Should we correct her and let her know that "net neutrality" is NOT a good thing?

 

[Spirit of '76]

Should we correct her and let her know that "net neutrality" is NOT a good thing?

Yes, of course.

 

[Slugg]

I corrected her hours ago and didn't get much of a response...just someone calling Ron Paul short sighted.

 

[angelatc]

SHort sighted - HA! Point them to the things he said and wrote 20 years ago, and challenge them to find anything he was wrong about.

 

[rich34]

Just sent her an email suggesting she read up a little bit more on net neutrality, and also thanked her for the article.

 

[maiki]

Wait until the video is online. I just saw it on justin.tv and it definitely is an extremely good interview and I think the google employees ended wit ha very good impression of him overall.

 

[Montana]

Should we correct her and let her know that "net neutrality" is NOT a good thing?

I keep getting the impression that people here don't know what net neutrality actually is. Yes, it's regulation, and it is a solution to a problem that only exists because there is insufficient competition in the market for internet access to avoid abusive monopolistic behavior on behalf of the providers. However, Paul often talks about a transition period, about not slashing everything immediately because it would cause too much of a shock, and that is what is needed in this case. In my opinion, the fix for this problem should go something like this:

First, implement network neutrality regulation. This should, in practice, change nothing: The telcos can keep doing what they're doing right now, they just can't implement any plans they might have had to double charge providers for the internet connection that you already paid for.

Next, prove that you can be a free marketeer by promoting competition. Eliminate any barriers that exist to competitors creating fiber networks, free up large quantities of broadcast spectrum for internet access, etc. You'll know you have succeeded when there are 10 or more competitive broadband providers in any given area.

Then, once the competition that government has inhibited for so long has been restored, regulations such as network neutrality can be eliminated because abusive providers will simply lose their customers.

The problem with doing anything other than this is that the current regulatory environment is not sane. Up until somewhat recently, a policy of network neutrality has been the norm because monopoly network providers were required to lease access to their infrastructure to competitors at competitive prices, in exchange for keeping their regional monopolies. Not long ago they successfully lobbied to have that restriction eliminated, while not eliminating their regulatory monopoly status. The problem is that while this is the step in the right direction, it's being done in the wrong order. If you have a regulatory monopoly and you want to introduce competition, first you have to introduce competition, and then, only after competitors show up, should you deregulate the monopoly. Allowing an unregulated government-created monopoly is nothing but a catastrophe waiting to happen, because it inevitably results in the worst abuses of government and the free market combined.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Will someone explain this whole Net Neutrality thing to me please? One minute, I think I understand it; the next minute, I don't. I was looking for some information on it from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and found this link to the video. This makes it look like a good thing, so I'm confused.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307

Like I said, I'm confused. Please give me input.

 

[Montana]

Network neutrality is the rare and elusive creature known as "good regulation". Libertarians don't like it because it's regulation, and regulation, in general, is bad. The fact is, it's regulation to mitigate the negative effects of other regulation. It should be unnecessary, and people oppose it on that ground. However, the problem that it purports to solve is still a genuine problem that exists whether you attempt a solution or not. I wrote something about it here. It would be nice if we could just get rid of the regulations that make network neutrality necessary, but opposing it on that ground has two flaws: First, you have to actually get rid of those other regulations. If you don't, you can't say that network neutrality has no purpose. Second, even if you do, it's probably still needed temporarily because it will take some time for the market to shake out and competitors to pop up and in the meantime we would have unregulated monopolies that would do everything they could to bring us back to the days of "We're the phone company, what are you going to do about it?"

 

[LibertyEagle]

What role does network neutrality play in Internet2?

 

[ThePieSwindler]

How are immigration reforms "tech friendly" ?

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

"Net Neutrality = Government Interference"

How many t-shirts should we get printed up? How many employees were there at Google again?

 

[jpa]

Will someone explain this whole Net Neutrality thing to me please? One minute, I think I understand it; the next minute, I don't. I was looking for some information on it from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and found this link to the video. This makes it look like a good thing, so I'm confused.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307

Like I said, I'm confused. Please give me input.

These are my personal view on the debate:

The need for (and support of) net neutrality comes from the fact there is a oligopoly in the US for high speed internet connection to the home (Comcact, Time Warner Cable, at&t, and Verizon) who are colluding & planning on charging profitable services (google, yahoo, etc) for high speed or priority on their networks.

So if I use Comcast, and google doesn't pay Comcast, my downloads from youtube & google video will be slower. (Comcast wouldn't dream of blocking google/yahoo/microsoft because then they would lose customers).

Ron Paul's position (which I support) is the government should not interfere or regulate. Period.

The problem is there is currently a "natural" monopoly on high speed internet access in many parts of America. There is only 1 company that has a co-axial cable that runs into my apartment (paid for by the City of Mountain View, but only Comcast has a right to use it). And only 1 company who has a copper wire to my apartment (at&t). So as a consumer, I can not switch providers, which means the market can not correct itself.

Comcast & Time Warner do not compete with each other!! The only time they compete is when they are bidding on being picked to service a community or city. After that, they are very friendly with each other. Phone companies DSL packages do compete with cable companies, but if all 4 major ISPs decide to have tiered networks (slower downloads to companies that don't pay them), then there is effectively no competition or choice in the marketplace.

Anyway, this would be a non-issue if there were a friction free market for high speed internet access. Any ISP who slowed down content would lose customers to ISPs that did not. In a few years, we will have more choice from high speed wireless providers with newer technology (like WiFi or WiMax) that doesn't use government regulated landlines connected to my apartment.

 

[thomaspaine23]

Tiering will come IMO. Tiering will be needed to prioritize voice traffic. Voice is very sensitive to delay, web traffic is not. Where it will get interesting is IPV6 because
encryption is built in, end to end. This is one reason I think it will be slow to be adopted. with encryption from end to end the government will have a hard time
snooping.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, thanks.

 

[jpa]

How are immigration reforms "tech friendly" ?

We (tech companies) are in dire need of talent in the US (out sourcing software development = bad products. Bringing talented programmers from overseas to grow our existing teams = good products).

The tech industry has consistently reached the max in visas section H1-B (high tech segment of legal immigration), year after year. Companies like Google & Microsoft are lobbying hard to raise the limits for this type of visa to fill jobs in the US. These companies literally have 100s of open positions not being filled by the US talent pool.


Some people in the tech industry say that the lobbying for more H1-B is just to drive software developers salaries down (more supply of talent = lower salaries). I think having the best & brightest of other countries come to America is good for all of us, even if means lower salaries for me (I am a software developer).

As a side note: Microsoft recently gave the US government a big F U for not raising the H1B limit. They opened a new campus just north of seattle in canada, so instead of talented works from around the world moving to the US, they will live in Canda (but less than 1 hour from Microsoft HQ).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/322652_msftvancouver06.html

 

[ThePieSwindler]

We (tech companies) are in dire need of talent in the US (out sourcing software development = bad products. Bringing talented programmers from overseas to grow our existing teams = good products).

The tech industry has consistently reached the max in visas section H1-B (high tech segment of legal immigration), year after year. Companies like Google & Microsoft are lobbying hard to raise the limits for this type of visa to fill jobs in the US. These companies literally have 100s of open positions not being filled by the US talent pool.


Some people in the tech industry say that the lobbying for more H1-B is just to drive software developers salaries down (more supply of talent = lower salaries). I think having the best & brightest of other countries come to America is good for all of us, even if means lower salaries for me (I am a software developer).

Ok.. so Ron paul supports more immigration of the legal variety one the welfare state is downsized. He is all for that sort of immigration - he is just against the illegal immigrants that actually hurt the opportunities of the more skilled workers here on visas.

 

[thomaspaine23]

h1b visas pointless

code development can take place anywhere around the world.
the only reason to argue for them is to drive prices down here.

 

[Quantumystic]

Will someone explain this whole Net Neutrality thing to me please? One minute, I think I understand it; the next minute, I don't. I was looking for some information on it from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and found this link to the video. This makes it look like a good thing, so I'm confused.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307

Like I said, I'm confused. Please give me input.

Read Post#7 by "Montana". This is exactly correct, and WHY I feel that in the current environment... Net Neutrality IS most definitely not only a GOOD thing, but a MANDATORY thing.

The telecoms want to effect a "Second-Tier" internet, that is more like an exhorbitant Toll Road for those who'll pay it, focusing the broadband innovations there... and allowing the present internet to slow strangle until it dies off. This is HOW the corporations plan to regain "control" of the internet and put the Genie back in the bottle.

This format would've prevented the Ron Paul Revolution online. It MUST be stopped at ALL COSTS.

 

[Quantumystic]

code development can take place anywhere around the world.
the only reason to argue for them is to drive prices down here.

This is true, and the fact that there ARE plenty of excellent programmers that are born American Citizens... except that they expect to be paid legitimately for their skills and talents, instead of settling for the Corporate Tablescraps left after Profiteering for Executive Management.

Lee Iacoca made the last Principled Acts I can remember by a Corporate Executive back in the 70s when he took over Chrysler. If memory serves, he worked for $1/yr for the first 3 yrs, to prove his commitment to resurrecting the company... before he would expect the more common compensation elements of the day.

If even half of Corporate Executives showed this kind of Character... I'd say let 'em knock themselves out. But they're not. The NeoCons have taken over, and everyone seems to be a "get in, get out" Greed-driven slacker... that's wants instant wealth gratification at the expense of anyone else. Especially the Labor/Talent that actually makes the product competitive.

Corporate Executive Management has lost the Work Ethic of making a top quality product for a competitive fair price, and accepting a REASONABLE portion of revenues as fair compensation. That's WHY they fight for monopolies.