« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Yes, Good-for-nothing Freeloaders Cry Out for Net Neutrality

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The FCC has opened a second comments period regarding the Free Press-Google Net Neutrality plan (the White House having publicly tucked tail on the matter), so here’s another reminder of why we need to oppose the whole ball of wax: It serves to benefit freeloaders at the expense or producers in a manner so pure it might fit in an Ayn Rand novel.

In short, groups like the EFF are saying the current draft doesn’t go far enough to protect copyright infringers and their downloaders from ‘abuses’ by copyright holders, their agents, and ISPs. Seriously. Says Spencer Dalziel at theinquirer.net:

Channeling well known Scottish actor, Mel Gibson’s bravado call to action in Braveheart, EFF’s Richard Esguerra said, “Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design.”

Freeloading, cheapskate downloaders who refuse to spend $10 on a movie or an iTunes album expect you (yes you, dear reader), me, and everyone else to subsidize their use of the network to make those downloads. Seriously. They want to make it illegal for ISPs to clamp down on such activities, and at least thwart efforts to make the users of BitTorrent-based download services pay for their pipe-busting activities.

No, BitTorrent the protocol is not exclusively used for copyright infringing downloads, but the peer-to-peer download setup, combined with the tracker’s ability to go without hosting the source material and instead just host hashes, is great for giving centralized hosts deniability as well as pushing last mile bandwidth use far beyond any normal use pattern. The latter is even a deliberate design feature of the protocol. But the freeloaders want to get to pay the same amount for that use, that you or I may pay for ordinary email and webpage use.

Ayn Rand’s famous novel had America’s best and brightest withdraw from society entirely. Net Neutrality as wished by the far left may not send anyone that far, but subsidzed copyright infringement will sure make some of America’s creative people go Galt instead of just putting their works out to be stolen online. I’m no Atlas, but I shrug at the EFF’s selfish, immature moaning at the plight of the looters, parasites, and moochers of our new economy.

Update: I’m told that today is Ayn Rand’s birthday. What a day for her to have been proven right about government.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • GregInFla

    It is obvious that the same folks who named it “Net Neutrality” also named the Employee Free Choice Act.

  • fpete13527

    Where as Net Neutrality was moving toward possible nix, they get a reason to keep it alive… from thieves.

    Digital music is now very cheap .99/song and it is available in mp3 format which can basically be played on most platforms without having to worry about DRM.

    For those in the Bit Torrent market that use internet for bulk theft, I hope they get felony jail time…longer.

    Net Neutrality (IE censorship of conservative blogs and radio on internet) is an Obamination. It must be killed.

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    We normally agree on issues, but on this one, we seem to disagree.

    First, “net neutrality” is a complete and total fabrication. It’s an absolute NON-ISSUE. It drives me nuts that so-called “news” people even bother with it. Have you ever known anyone who was unable to access content (any content) online? I haven’t (except for AOL banning certain websites they deemed “inappropriate”, but that’s outside of this context…)

    Up to this point, I have yet to read one credible story where someone’s usage was throttled and the ISP wasn’t forced to open the spigot to honor the T&Cs of the paid usage agreement. Anyone who can do simple math ought to understand the limitations of a pipeline to a neighborhood when presented with the laws of physics.

    If someone wants to run a webserver with the throughput of a site like, say, Matt Drudge’s, let him at it. But he won’t do it on a $50/mo. cable plan with Time Warner because (as we all know) such connections aren’t built for it. I’m also willing to bet that your average BitTorrent user is something on the order of 100/1 or less of ISP customers.

    As for copyright infringement, gimme a break. People have been copying and sharing music and videos since the first cassette recorder and VHS (or was it reel-to-reel?? I wasn’t alive then…).

    It sounds to me like you actually want some kind of regulation of the internet. Be carefuld what you wish for. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • krelborn

    Net neutrality is one of those stealth issues. No one knows about it, therefore no one thinks about it.

  • momac

    I think he is saying it should be the ISP’s right to deny service if a user is outside what they specify. The NN crowd is trying to force ISPs to treat all traffic equally, which a) keeps services from throttling things like BT, and b) keeps innovation from happening because everything has to be treated the same way.

    Anyway, not to speak for Neil, but I’m on the same page. People are just too lazy to switch to a service that fits them, and too cheap to want to pay what it actually costs. Lazy, freeloading, whining leeches.

  • momac

    No one is really being throttled, NN is at root a solution for a theoretical ‘what if’ problem. Ridiculous.

  • nessa

    I can’t imagine NN being any different, in fact it seems to me that the only thing the current administration would support would be something that would further their slavering, never sated hunger for power.

  • mrbill

    Whoaaa…we must not have the same understanding of NN. It is NOT about your SPEED at the ISP level. You are free to buy as fast as you want from your ISP.

    It is NOT about VOLUME in how much in mb or Gb you consume. You can buy as MUCH as you want from your ISP.

    What NN is about is PRIORITIZATION of Packets moving along the backbone.

    ATT wants to be able to charge Google or Yahoo or Bing or YOU a different price to set whomever data at a HIGHER PRIORITY over everyone elses data. So the packets will be labeled and sent around or before someone elses packets. Has nothing to do with your perceived speed at your home.

    Just another way to wring out a few more pennies from every packet.

    Would you like for Ford to pay the highway people to allow Fords to always be in front of your Honda. Get clearance for every stop light while you wait, make every left turn while you wait…..

    That is what NN is about. Prioritization of packet status. Not speed or volume. You can buy all of that anytime.

  • momac

    “ATT wants to be able to charge Google or Yahoo or Bing or YOU a different price to set whomever data at a HIGHER PRIORITY over everyone elses data.”

    A) Is that actually true?
    B) Have they tried and succeeded on any level?
    C) Would customers stay if they did?

    This is a solution to a problem that hasn’t really happened in 20 years of net usage, and forcing equal prioritization of packets does in fact stifle innovation. It is closer to forcing FedEx and UPS to only offer one speed of delivery. Not that analogies matter, because none of this has even happened.

    So I don’t know why people are so anxious to get the state into the Internet, which has until now been so free. I am not prepared to give up control of it to a nonexistent problem, with totally unknown side effects.

  • mobius2702

    Would you like for Ford to pay the highway people to allow Fords to always be in front of your Honda. Get clearance for every stop light while you wait, make every left turn while you wait?..

    You mean like carpool/hybrid-only express lanes?

    The gov is no less susceptible to prioritization schemes, except their decisions are based on the political flavor of the month instead of profit motive.

  • Scope

    you believe because nothing has come to pass yet with NN, it’s rediculous to worry about it at this time. Isn’t that like hauling in the hoses after the house has already burned to the ground. Your faith in this current “takeover everything” Progressive government is amazing and not a little naive.

  • Scope

    The youngins’ who have been made dumb, and lack any moral sense, which has been designed and achieved by the Progressives. I see this portion of the population as a majority of those that believe that government owes them everything, including music and video downloads. Like the young woman said, during the campaign, she won’t have to worry about paying her mortgage, or putting gas in her car. Another woman not long ago was in line for some of Obama’s “stash.” I guess now, they think music and movies are a “right.”

  • bonkey

    So, people who pay for their ISP $20-$50 a month, and pay for their service (World of Warcraft for example $15 a month) can’t use bittorrent to download their patches? All because someone might be using bittorrent to steal?

    So, let’s get rid of self checkout at walmart, because people might use that to steal too.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because someone might do something bad, you don’t stop it for everyone.

    People who say that we don’t need it, because we have always had it.. I wish that were true. It is true that you have always had net neutrality, which is why it’s a good thing, we have used it, we know it’s good. But, the reason we need to get in front of this, is the technology is changing.

    What the ISPs are doing is scanning your internet traffic, spying on you (if you want to get dramatic, and apparently we do) figuring out who you are talking to and what you are doing. Then they decide the worthiness (based on algorithms, not some dude making decisions about you personally) of your traffic, and throttling your connection, or disallowing the connection entirely, if they don’t approve.

    If you want to be able to connect to any site YOU choose, and not be punished (throttled) or disconnected, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

    Whether or not you think it should be government enforced, is a whole separate issue, that tends to get blended on this forum.

    Look at the title of the column, if you disagree, you are good for nothing freeloader. Makes for a great discussion when you demonize any descent. Don’t the Dems like to do that?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Re-read.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • bonkey

    Wow, okay. Enlighten us all, where did I supposedly copy/paste this from.

    I just sat here for 5 minutes and typed that. So if someone else wrote this same thing, I’d love to see it.

    Plagiarism is a bold claim. Surely you can prove it.

  • ralphdaily

    Ok, I don’t want freeloaders.

    But to me, NN means ISPs can’t use their power to extract deals as to who they will allow customers to access. My first exposure to NN controversy was when the old Bellsouth said they wanted to charge Apple 10 cents a song downloaded or they would slow down access to iTunes. Today, without NN Microsoft could pay an ISP $100MM to use Bing exclusively and not let their customers access Google. The Bellsouth case is something that really did happen, the others, could happen and money talks. I like NN to keep from my ISP from dumping websites that don’t pay them.

  • billollib

    Your reasoning that because peer-to-peer technologies can be used to do bad things, then its use should be penalized because it is anti-free market is completely backwards. From this reasoning should I gather than you believe that gun ownership should be severely rationed and controlled because it is so easy to kill a person with one illegally?

    In fact, peer-to-peer technologies are used every day for perfectly legal *business-related* use. For instance, it is the most common way to distribute large software upgrades such as linux distributions. See, for instance, http://www2.mandriva.com/downloads/ for Mandriva linux paid subscriptions using bittorrent.

    You are arguing that real, for-profit businesses should be damaged in order to blame a *technology* for the actions of its users. Just like Dems do with guns. How, well, *liberal* of you.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Next time read the whole article before you start pasting the talking points. I addressed that.

    P.S. I’m the one arguing agaisnt government intervention.

    Do get a copy of Hooked on Phonics. It worked for many youngsters and it could work for you, too.

  • billollib

    One more note in passing. Any argument that the ISPs represent “free market” agents is also silly. The communications market is heavily regulated and access is controlled. Most places have at most two options — their monopoly landline and their monopoly cable company. The argument that they should not be regulated in this because it is a free market is just silly.

    If you want to play free-marketeer, don’t start with this. Start with the underlying problem lack of real free-market competition by the providers. When I have the choice of 20 ISP providers all competing in a free market, then I won’t need access regulations because the market will create it. When I live in a world with one landline and one cable company who manipulate the market through their interactions with local and state government, then I’m not interested in hearing lectures about how this constitutes free-market capitalism.

    Regulate or don’t regulate, but don’t misuse “free market” propaganda simply to provide monopolies with greater control.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Anything anyone else has told you is fantasy.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Pick that up at Daily Kos did we?

  • billollib

    You are arguing for *selective* government intervention.

    Your argument is for intervention that creates a monopoly, but don’t allow intervention that ameliorates the effects of monopoly. That’s where the pretense is.

    If this were a polemic arguing to get rid of *all* government regulation of communications, it would mean one thing. It’s not. It’s a polemic arguing to institutionalize the effects of goverment regulation by stopping a patch that helps with some of the effects of monopoly.

  • billollib

    No, I picked it up when I paid my cable and telephone bills — and looked for alternatives.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Cite it or retract and apologize.

  • belcatar

    I’m a first time poster, and very glad to find this site.

    I’ve been poking around over at the Daily Kos, and this is one of the subjects that has been brought up. I pointed out that the government has no business telling private companies how to route traffic through privately held networks. The impression I get from the pro-”net neutrality” people is that internet access is a shiny new Fundamental Human Right” like access to a doctor and a well-paying job.

    Somehow, the internet now belongs to “all of us”, even though no one could name a nonprofit ISP, or a charity organization that builds and maintains computer networks.

    My take is this: If people don’t like how private companies route traffic through their networks, too bad. They should get George Soros to build a brand new network that runs off liberal Happy Thoughts instead of money.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m so used to the astroturf. :-)

    But yeah, the competition we have in the last mile market is breathtaking these days. While state and local governments have done everything they can to create a kickback-payoff situation with the franchise oligopoly system, the wireless market is blowing that away.

    And I’m thankful for it. Competition does more to serve people than government every will.

  • belcatar

    Don’t get cable. You aren’t forced to get it, you know. If you are dissatisfied with the amount of money you are paying to have people advertise to you, stop paying them. Then they’ll stop.

    I live in rural Maine, and even here I have at least two options for paying people to advertise to me. I can go with Dish Network or whatever that other one is called. I choose not to pay either company to pump advertisements into my house, so it isn’t something I worry too much about.

    And if enough people stop paying them, they’ll change the way they do things so you’ll start paying them again.

    How much is telephone service anyway? 20, 30 bucks a month, including call waiting, caller ID and unlimited long distance? I’ll bet that one is really breaking the bank.

  • bonkey

    Cite it, or retract and apologize.

  • billollib

    Your answer is nonresponsive.

    First, we are talking about internet access, not television programming. Surely you are not claiming you can get realistic internet service from Dish Network without a telephone line or cable.

    Second, “if you don’t like the monopoly, then do without” is not a very good defense of monopoly. Indeed, we can do without many, many things. In fact, that’s a socialist mantra — that free-market capitalism provides *too many* choices and the hoi polloi should be protected from making bad decisions.

    Mercantilism is not much different. The bottom line, however, is that you and Neil need to recognize the mercantilism is not the same as free-market capitalism, and defending the special abilities of government-sponsored monopoly to is not a defense of free-market
    capitalism.

    Let me remind you that the Boston Tea Party was a reaction to exactly what you and Neil support — the establishment of a monopoly on tea by the East India Tea Company. And, interestingly, the mercantilists used the same arguments you use — if the Colonists don’t like paying extra for their tea, then they are free to do without. That’s what passes for “free-market” conservatism today. Feh.

  • billollib

    Once again, you pretend that government-allocated bandwidth and government-protected monopoly constitutes free-market competition. Feh.

    The idea that private companies should be able to charge whatever they want and do whatever they want wherever and whenever they want *assumes* the concept of an “efficient market” where there is easy access to alternatives and competition. This is simply not the case.

    When you can show me all these alternatives I have to monopoly land line and monopoly cable, then I’ll be a big fan of letting all those tens of alternatives charge what they want and have whatever policies they want. But you can’t. And pretending it exists doesn’t make it so.

  • belcatar

    Yes, Virginia, you can get internet service without a cable or a phone line. Up here in northern Maine, “cable bill” means “the money you pay to receive cable television.” In Haynesville, population 137, it means “the money people in Houlton and Lincoln pay to receive cable television.”

    My point is that I live on the edge of American Civilization. Sometimes I go days without hot water because heating oil is expensive and the oil company’s minimum delivery is 100 gallons. I keep chickens in the barn for the eggs, and my biggest annoyance is when my dog goes after deer on our morning walks. Even out here in the woods, I still have THREE CHOICES for internet service. I can get Hughes, Wildblue, or I can get dial-up. In Houlton or Lincoln, a person can get dialup, Hughes, Wildblue, Fairpoint DSL, Polaris Cable internet, or Pioneer Wireless, which is some kind of microwave thing. (They laughed at me when I called them and told them were I was.)

    So here is my response, since I strive to avoid nonresponsiveness: What monopoly are you talking about? And second, I don’t want the Feds meddling with the internet at all. It isn’t broken, there’s no crisis, so there’s no need for the feds to step in and instantly turn the non-crisis into a heap of steamy dog-feces.

  • belcatar

    What horrible deeds are being done that are preventing you from enjoying the internet? The internet isn’t a right. It’s a service. If you don’t like the amount you’re paying for the service, stop paying it. Go enjoy the internet at the public library for free.

    You said in your post that you became dissatisfied because you felt you were paying too much for your “cable and telephone” and wanted an alternative. Not having internet is an alternative. When Hughes wanted to charge me 120 bucks to adjust the dish, I told them to get lost and went back to dialup. Dialup is very, very slow, so eventually I hired Wildblue.

    If the company charges too much, people will stop paying it. They’ll go outside an have a barbecue, maybe start an impromptu game of catch with their kids. Maybe they’ll finish that model airplane that’s been gathering dust on the shelf. The eeevil monopoly will then start losing revenue, and rethink their position. Then the company will lower its prices so that more people will pay for their services again.

  • matthewtod

    1,2,3

  • matthewtod

    Okay, now that I have been registered long enough to comment . . .

    Billollib and Bonkey have valid points. Most folks don’t have a plethora of choices when it comes to ISPs. I can choose Cox or AT&T where I live so there is a little competition, but Wild Blue is pricey for the speeds you get.

    It comes down to whether or not you think it’s okay for the gov’t to tell privately owned companies how to use the infrastructures they spent millions to build if those companies plan to engage in discriminatory practices using those same infrastructures.

  • musix

    So, the recent issue with a major ISP being caught blocking file transfers of the Bible is not an example throttling?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003962392_webcomcastbible19.html

    Does you phone company block you from calling religious organizations? Does your car company block you from driving to religious sites?

    Step back a moment and think, how does the ISP know unless it is reading all of the internet traffic that passes over their pipes. Taking the next logical step, they could be reading emails, recording web sites visited, monitoring chat sessions, maybe looking into VOIP calls………

    It is always nice to see an article blame the downloaders. To continue along that line, blame this on users that expect to get the service that they purchased. If a company offer a xy download speed, should you expect to get that speed?