This entry was posted on 4/27/2008 6:52 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
27 April 2008
Oh Einstein, you can not be more mistaken...
From an interview for Niewe Rotterdamsche Courant in 1921 (Berliner Tageblatt, 7 July 1921), Einstein said of his first impressions:
"...knowledge and justice are ranked above wealth and power by a large section of the human race. My experience teaches me that this idealistic outlook is particularly prevalent in America."
Surrounding the FCC and net-neutrality, America has proven Einsteen miserably wrong.
Here are some 'tidbits' on net-neutrality:
1) The net is completely politicized. Net-neutrality is primarily split along bi-partisan lines:
a) the Democrats support it and
b) the Republicans are against it.
2) The FCC Chairman is Kevin Martin:
a) all indications point to him being a Republican on this issue,
b) he refuses to take any legislative measures to ensure net-neutrality is enforced by the telecom industry (John Dunbar, "FCC cheif says no need for new regulation of the Internet," The Associated Press, 22 April 2008),
c) he has a different notion of what should/not be enforced, stating that the FCC's 2005 anti-discrimination 'Internet Policy Statement' does not "establish rules nor are they enforceable documents" - so it is rather confusing because at the same time he says the "commission has a responsibility to enforce the principles that it has already adopted" he does not believe the approved policies and document to be enforced is enforceable!
3) The issue really boils down to money, control, power-hording by the telecom companies at the expense of American consumers, and the FCC's decision to side with the telecom companies over the American consumers.
4) What net-neutrality proponents ask for is that ISPs treat all Internet packets equally, rather than filter based upon how much its consumers spend (Brad Stone, "Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic," The New York Times, 28 March 2008).
Here is another important fact: as a point of comparison, Japan offers "the fastest network speeds on the planet" to its citizens at an affordable price (roughly $28-35/month, yen-to-dollar).
Net-neutrality is a salient issue because rather than being a free forum for democratic exchange and dialogue, the net - the last bastion of free speech - is under political manipulation and control. It has been an increasingly heated issue since 2000. Recently, it has come under attack because of Comcast's decision to play 'Internet traffic cop' by its "throttling of file-sharing traffic on its cable-modem service" and because of this, the FCC held a public hearing on the issue in Cambridge, Massachusetts (The Associated Press, "NY Attorney General Subpoenas Comcast on Broadband," 26 February 2008).
Comcast's reasoning for its actions is that it is necessary to "keep other Internet traffic, like Web content, flowing smoothly" that translates to: 'because we are power-hording and will provide superior service only to those paying us premium prices to do so'.
And this is a sentiment vocalized by net-neutrality proponents, most notably, Justine Bateman:
"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling" (John Dunbar, "FCC cheif says no need for new regulation of the Internet," The Associated Press, 22 April 2008).
How about this:
Rather than police Internet traffic speeds, why not police cybercrime?
According to a report by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center, US victims reported 2007 losses of $239M to online fraud with average losses at $2,530 (Doreen Carvajal, "High-Tech Crime Is an Online Bubble That Hasn't Burst," The New York Times, 7 April 2008). On top of this report, it seems the US judicial system is 'weak on cybercrime' as "judges remain reluctant to order much jail time for computer crime."
If you think cybercrime is dying down, think again.
According to Websense, a security vendor in San Diego that filters web sites for corporations, mass web attacks were reported in mid-March and in late-March/early-April, hackers "turned their attention to search engines" preying on web pages "that incorrectly use JavaScript...to infect thousands of sites" (Deborah Gage, "Hackers infiltrate Google searches," San Francisco Chronicle, 2 April 2008). What happens is when urls for web pages with incorrect JavaScripts show up on Google searches and are clicked on, the hackers redirect the user to a malicious program to steal information. Among the latest victims of this attack are Wal-Mart, Sears, Target, and Bloomingdales.
So again, I reiterate the question:
Why not turn attention and legislation to cybercrime rather than restrict and interfere with net-neutrality?
