Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Mark Cuban on Net Neutrality and Ayn RandMark Cuban, who knows a little about the Internet, has wedded the push for Net Neutrality to Ayn Rand.Mark Cuban compares net neutrality to Ayn Randby Stefanie A. Smith13 Nov 2014CNBCFrom the article:Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban says the debate over net neutrality reminds him of something out of an Ayn Rand novel.Cuban, as he is sometimes wont to do, took to Twitter Thursday to make his case. Here are five Twitter tweets from Cuban (all Nov. 13, 2014) mentioned in the article:1. the speed/quality of our home/phone broadband has improved dramatically. We have new tech/apps/clouds/IOT every day. Its working.2. In my adult life i have never seen a situation that paralleled what I read in Ayn Rands books until now with Net Neutrality3. The "People" want more gov to protect them so they cant be stopped from getting movies/tv shows OTT.That is straight out of Ayn Rand4. If Ayn Rand were an up and coming author today, she wouldnt write about steel or railroads, it would be net neutrality5. Who is John Galt I'm with Cuban.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I'm not.his first statement was "it's working" we have bigger and better and more everyday. He failed to mention that currently we have net neutrality. It's working BECAUSE we have it. It doesn't matter if it is enforced by government or the market, the point is net neutrality is good so let's preserve it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 Derek,I agree that what the people who use the term net neutrality refer to is basically what we have now, but that's not what net neutrality ultimately is when you look at what else they say.The problem comes in allowing the government camel to stick its nose under the edge of the freedom tent. Once in, try to get it out without upending the tent.Besides, the whole issue of net neutrality, from what I have read, is a massive confusion. We are talking about major power for major power players and a viciously effective Orwellian propaganda maneuver. (I'll talk about that in a later post.)Here's a video from John Oliver from June talking against net neutrality from a sort-of Occupy Wall Street perspective (meaning big corporations are bad and big government is good). I disagree with that approach--I'm against the cronies who wed business with government, but much of what he says is true. Lot's of experts didn't listen to Cuban back during the first dot-com bubble. They sank. He didn't. He also helped invent RSS.So agree or disagree with him, the guy is qualified to issue an opinion that merits more consideration than a TV pundit--by far in my opinion.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Ted Cruz calls it "Obamacare for the internet". For that alone he deserves to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Ted Cruz calls it "Obamacare for the internet". For that alone he deserves to be president.Thank you, Pete, I did not know he said that.Cruz has one single problem and that is that he looks "demonic." It is the Nixon syndrome.Guy is grade A brilliant though.A.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Net neutrality is a grotesque violation of property rights. No one, not one customer on the whole planet, has a right to the movement of a single electron across the infrastructure someone else built at cost of many billions of dollars. We may as well ban higher FedEx rates for air vs truck. Grotesque and retrogressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 OK, I need a definition.Does this one work?http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htmDefinition of Net NeutralitySimply put, net neutrality is a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 "network design paradigm" makes it sound clean.It's a federal ban on fees for fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 "network design paradigm" makes it sound clean.It's a federal ban on fees for fast.Understood.The problem with this "public utility" comparison by President [thank God I picked Joe "the Plagiarist" and "dumbest Vice President in history" Biden] O'bama is that it does sound "clean" and "in the public interest."Anyone out in OL land dispute this definition?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 I think we definitely should be worried about the loss of freedom of companies that hold government-enforced monopolies in certain geographic regions.I mean, free market and all, right? That's not my position, obviously.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 Here's one comment I wrote to a friend on the Oliver video above:He [Oliver] laid out one of the most effective persuasion techniques in existence for those in power, and he stated it in simple language (this is a direct quote from the video): If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. He said you could put the entire text of Mein Kampf in Apple's user agreement and people would click "agree." I say ditto for federal regulations on anything. Except people do not get to agree. They just get to obey. I don't know why the hell I used smileys, but there it is. This is friggin' tragic...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 I can't resist using the Oliver quote again:If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring.Like Obamacare, for instance.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Here's one comment I wrote to a friend on the Oliver video above:He [Oliver] laid out one of the most effective persuasion techniques in existence for those in power, and he stated it in simple language (this is a direct quote from the video): If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. He said you could put the entire text of Mein Kampf in Apple's user agreement and people would click "agree." I say ditto for federal regulations on anything. Except people do not get to agree. They just get to obey. I don't know why the hell I used smileys, but there it is. This is friggin' tragic...MichaelThe FCC should be defunded along with almost 75% of the alphabet agencies.(CNSNews.com) - Since 2007, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, budgetary outlays for 12 of the 15 Cabinet-level federal governmental departments have increased in almost straight-line fashion – in several case substantially. But for all departments, outlays for Fiscal Year 2010 are higher than FY07 or in FY08.Here they are:Department of Agriculture (68 percent increase in spending):2007- $84.427 billion2008- $90.795 billion2009- $114.440 billion2010- $142.016 billionDepartment of Commerce (158 percent):2007- $6.475 billion2008- $7.721 billion2009- $10.718 billion2010- $16.714 billionDepartment of Defense (31 percent increase):2007- $528.578 billion2008- $594.662 billion2009- $636.775 billion2010- $692.031 billionDepartment of Education (61 percent):2007- $66.372 billion2008- $65.963 billion2009- $53.389 billion2010- $106.944 billionDepartment of Energy (90 percent):2007- $20.116 billion2008- $21.400 billion2009- $24.683 billion2010- $38.278 billionDepartment of Health and Human Services (29 percent):2007- $671.982 billion2008- $700.442 billion2009- $796.267 billion2010- $868.762 billionDepartment of Homeland Security (35 percent):2007- $39.172 billion2008- $40.684 billion2009- $51.725 billion2010- $52.903 billionDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (37 percent):2007- $45.561 billion2008- $49.088 billion2009- $61.019 billion2010- $62.518 billionDepartment of Interior (15 percent):2007- $10.469 billion2008- $9.817 billion2009- $11.775 billion2010- $12.042 billionDepartment of Justice (29 percent):2007- $23.349 billion2008- $26.545 billion2009- $27.711 billion2010- $30.333 billionDepartment of Labor (340 percent):2007- $47.544 billion2008- $58.838 billion2009- $138.157 billion2010- $209.265 billionDepartment of State (87 percent):2007- $13.737 billion2008- $17.493 billion2009- $21.427 billion2010- $25.726 billionDepartment of Transportation (47 percent):2007- $61.697 billion2008- $64.944 billion2009- $73.004 billion2010- $90.944 billionDepartment of Treasury (3 percent):2007- $490.589 billion2008- $548.797 billion2009- $701.775 billion2010- $502.980 billionDepartment of Veterans Affairs (71 percent):2007- $72.792 billion2008- $84.749 billion2009- $95.457 billion2010- $124.565 billionAstounding amount of absolute waste.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 "network design paradigm" makes it sound clean.It's a federal ban on fees for fast.In about 10 or 20 years the internet will be about a hundred times as fast as it is now. We will go from high speed to ultra high speed. Then fees for fast will be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 As long as I am quoting from my message to my friend, here is the rest. When he first wrote to me about Mark Cuban's tweets, I responded:Mark Cuban's right. All the government wants to do is get a choke-hold on regulating Internet Providers so it can tell them what to do and make their services "neutral" for users. Yeah, right. The Arabs call this letting the camel get its nose under the tent. What's worse, the government won't be as evil as it wants to be. It will be incompetent and really will fuck it up. The name net neutrality means the opposite of what it really is. The propagandists sure know how to squeeze juice out of cognitive dissonance. Some big IP's want net neutrality, too, because they bought the government and want to milk the public through law and deception, not business and merit. The stupid asses don't realize that tomorrow, someone else can buy the government.Then he asked: what is net neutrality ?I thought it was just totally open , no ?I first wrote back:I think I answered this in my other email before I even saw it. The one thing Cuban is not addressing is that you need a license to become an internet provider in the first place. You and I can't just go out and start laying fiber optic cable and sell access. So the real deal is to get the government entirely out of the Internet. Think about this. In trying to make the Internet safe from hackers, exploitation, etc., the government came up with the NSA's data collection program. Now it spies on everybody. What could possibly go wrong? Net neutrality has something just as bad in it. I don't know what that is (although if I think about it, I could probably come up with something plausible), but I do know it will involve the government taking over more and more control of the individual and business, while giving the opposite impression. People won't even be able to hide money before too long...After I thought about it some, I sent him another message:Your question is exactly why the bums call it net neutrality. Most people are going about their lives, doing their work, trying to make ends meet, paying attention to their entertainment pursuits, their family, their aches and pains and worries, etc. They don't have time to read in depth about every goddam technical issue that comes up in the media. So they think exactly what you just asked: "Net neutrality? Doesn't that mean totally open?..." That is exactly what they are engineered to think with that term. George Orwell must be laughing at everyone from his grave: "war is peace," "freedom is slavery," "ignorance is strength." Notice how this phrase "net neutrality" is vicious in another sense. In Orwell's Newspeak, the government tried to eliminate all synonyms and antonyms in order to eliminate nuance. In other words, it takes a hell of a lot of propaganda sophistication to dream up using a term like "neutrality" with the Internet. Nobody uses this word in everyday life, so they don't develop a lot of nuance around it. Think quick. What is a synonym for neutrality? If you're like me, nothing immediately comes to mind, then things like fairness, open, etc., start creeping in. But it feels a bit awkward. Ditto for antonyms. Think quick. What is an antonym for neutrality? Er... uh... prejudice, biased, but how does that relate to Internet use?... hmmm.. dammit... uh... slavery?... compulsion?... (and so on). See how tricky that one is? Everybody knows what the word means, but nobody has nuance for it on the tip of their tongue. Think about a word you use everyday and see the difference. Say cheap. Think quick. What is a synonym for cheap? I don't know about you but I immediately think inexpensive, shoddy, worthless, low-class, bargain, etc. Lots of immediate nuance for whatever context I encounter. (You can do this with antonyms, too. Expensive, lush, rip-off, rich, etc.) So, without immediate nuance from familiarity, when you think neutrality, you think it means neutral and fair for everyone. What's more, since the average user is this "everyone" (as opposed to the Internet provider companies), the average user thinks this neutrality applies to him and vaguely to everyone else. But he doesn't care so much about the other guy. That's by default and everyone is like that with things they have no reason to think about. Thus, you have a perfect example of Newspeak. No nuance and totally misleading. I know this is a detour, but I have never come across a better depiction of the attitude the non-nuance of Newspeak produces in people than the following fable from Ambrose Bierce: The Sportsman and the Squirrel A Sportsman who had wounded a Squirrel, which was making desperate efforts to drag itself away, ran after it with a stick, exclaiming: “Poor thing! I will put it out of its misery.” At that moment the Squirrel stopped from exhaustion, and looking up at its enemy, said: “I don’t venture to doubt the sincerity of your compassion, though it comes rather late, but you seem to lack the faculty of observation. Do you not perceive by my actions that the dearest wish of my heart is to continue in my misery?” At this exposure of his hypocrisy, the Sportsman was so overcome with shame and remorse that he would not strike the Squirrel, but pointing it out to his dog, walked thoughtfully away. We must always try to detect when we have become that Sportsman. This crappy Newspeak used by engineers of consent--with terms like "net neutrality"--constantly turn us into that Sportsman against our will. I think this is a good topic for an article later.And it just might be.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/11/Net-Neutrality-copy.jpghttp://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/11/Net-Neutrality-2-copy.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 I just had a crazy thought.Imagine if I, having my Randian tendencies and free market discourse and all, happened to own a crapload of stocks in, say, Comcast.I wonder what my discourse on how unfair all this net neutrality stuff was to Internet Providers would be, I wonder. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I take this subject personally so please pardon my blunt language...You guys are INSANEYou simply hear the phrase government regulation and immediately its bad. For me this has nothing to do with government. I don't care if net neutrality is maintained by the FCC or the CCCP. Hell, it could be maintained by the Girl Scouts. You guys keep talking about fast lanes. The fight over net neutrality is NOT about fast lanes, its about throttling. And before you even try to say that throttling is a scare tactic brought up by those like me, don't forget when I did my rant on the subject (here in the living room- Ill have to link later) not only did I provide several examples or where ISP's have ALREADY throttled web sites whose services are in competition with their own but I also provided a direct quote from an ISP spokesperson who explicated stated that they seek to be able to control/modulate/end the connection to any site for any reasons what so ever.In your opinion it must be fair then that a mall owner, in a personal dispute with one of his tenants- who pays rent upfront and on time, decides to build a barricade in front of the shops entrance, or put security guards there who only allow one customer in per hour. Or maybe that mall owner notices that one particular tenant is doing rather well, so he says either you now pay us double the agreed upon rent or I'll disrupt your business. Would that be the right of the mall owner? I know what you are going to say, "well the mall owner would then lose out because the shop would move some place else" WELL WHERE IS AN INTERNET COMPANY GOING TO MOVE????!!! They can't simply tell the ISP "If you are going to act like that, I'm out of here." AND the customer (me) can't tell the ISP that either because as you very well know most ISPs are local monopolies, I for example (and I live in a mid-tier city) have the option of either Comcast, Satellite or dial up. And those last two are hardly options. This is a street gang shake down and you guys are applauding the mob bosses for racketeering.Lets not forget that all these billions that ISPs were supposed to have spent for infrastructure, much of it was provided by the same tax payers (through the same government intervention that made them monopolies in the first place) who they now plan to screw overI return to my example I used in my previous rant. Should the government, who built the road system, be able to tell UPS who they can and can't do business with, at what times, and for how long? No! If the government want to charge a toll for use on its roads, fine, that's what you can do with your property, but you cant say "Pay the toll and you can go 60 miles an hour except if you are picking up merchandise from the Land's End or Macy's distribution centers. For those two, you can only drive 10 miles an hour. Why? Because they offer products which compete with mine and I got kids to feed man!"Maybe its because you guys are older than me and you don't have the same connection to the internet that the younger generations do ....... I don't know, but you guys just don't see the impact that this will have on the future...Oh, and since I said something about the future, before someone says the ISPs need this money to increase speeds for the future NO! NO! NO they don't. Comcast themselves has already shown that the CURRENT system can handle many many many times the speed and traffic as they allow through. I'll provide links when I get home but I think it was like 300 mbs per second and that's over copper. Last year, it was shown that fiber optics (Im looking at you Verizon- who refuses to build in Baltimore might I add) can do over a TERABIT per second! So take all that infrastructure improvements and shove them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I take this subject personally so please pardon my blunt language...You guys are INSANEYou simply hear the phrase government regulation and immediately its bad. For me this has nothing to do with government.Can you give me ten (10) examples wherein government control of a product, or, service has been 100% "good" by whateever standard your "bad" is to be evaluated by?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I don't need to give you ten examples Selene because the phrase government regulation is not being used in the same way as you are making it out to be. This would not be government telling companies what to do or providing check lists or impact studies or taking fees. This is government merely saying "keep the model that you already have. The model that works." That's it. That's all this is about. The commerce and advancement that works over the internet has been nurtured by a specific (open and free to all comers) environment. The government says "keep it open and free". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 The invasive plan that was formulated later in the discussion by the FCC was completely against the argument for net neutrality and it was batted down by the original proponents such as myself on the FCC website. Keep in mind that THAT set of regulations actually did allow the ISPs to chop the internet up and that was wrong. That sort of regulation shouldn't be allowed the same as the practice itself of laying claim to the open world created by millions of independent people called the internet. That's what the ISP are trying to do. The cable tv business is drying up so they are going to try to make the internet into the next cable model- if you want access to these sites, pay this amount, if you want access to these , then pay this. That is NOT how the internet was envisioned when clever individuals used an existing infrastructure to send information. The ISPs just happened to be there, they didn't make the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 The first picture you linked to Selene says, it's not broken. I agree and THAT is what net neutrality is. Leave the model as it is. How is an ISP who wants to change the model somehow right in your book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 The government says "keep it open and free".Like the government says "serve safe meat" to all the food services in America.Like the government says "do not pollute the waterways of America.Also, if the net is "open and free" now, how is a government edict going to keep the net "open and free."This always amazes me when we have government building inspectors bought off, government purchase officers who rob the taxpayers blind and cadres of commissioners who are "nudged" to direct taxpayer assets to political pals. Government involvement guarantees nothing.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Government involvement guarantees nothing.A...One thing it does: Govt involvement guarantees more Govt involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Government involvement guarantees nothing.A...One thing it does: Govt involvement guarantees more Govt involvement.True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now