Things Moby Doesn't Like: Meat, Greedy Telcos
from the pr-tricks dept
Earlier in the week, we noted some blatant propaganda from an astroturfing group supported by telcos and other companies that are against legislation that would mandate network neutrality. But groups on the other side of the issue are getting up to PR stunts as well, trotting out well-known policy analyst Moby for a press conference, while REM has generated some more publicity by aligning itself with the “Save the Internet” crowd. This puts the musicians in with some strange bedfellows, including the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America. But despite that broad base of support, the net neutrality debate is quickly becoming a largely partisan issue. Many of these groups are concerned with free-speech issues, thinking that without net neutrality, network owners could simply block content they don’t agree with — but that’s not likely to be an issue. The telcos’ motivation in this issue is not political, it’s strictly financial. They’ll only seek payment from companies and content providers like Google, Apple and Vonage that can pay enough to make it worthwhile, and are probably smart enough to realize that blocking sites on political grounds wouldn’t be a smart move. It seems like the net neutrality issue has crossed a fine line: while it was important to make more people aware of what was going on, some of the groups raising the awareness — on both sides — have turned this into a highly politicized debate, and one whose outcome will probably be determined more by political, partisan ideology rather than any more meaningful criteria.
Comments on “Things Moby Doesn't Like: Meat, Greedy Telcos”
A can of mixed nuts
The “net neutrality” push is simply the latest attempt by the regulate-everything Left (and other anti-liberty types) to snuff out one of the remaining truly free aspects of society. One look at the moonbats supporting this should make anyone scared, very scared.
Re: A can of mixed nuts
actually, net neutrality would make the internet less regulated. and you must be of the mindset that liberty means the rich get richer. of course you are your a Righty. and as for moonbats to be afraid of, i mean this in the nicest of ways, i hope you burn in your neocon hell and cheaney shots you in the face
Re: Re: A can of mixed nuts
Now I’m confused about the meaning of net neutrality. I understand it to mean that network operators would be required to treat all transmissions the same. E.g., VoIP packets would be required to be treated the same as email packets. If this is what it means then it does mean additional regulation, not less regulation. You can argue about whether it’s good regulation or bad regulation, but it is regulation that doesn’t exist today.
Re: Re: Re: A can of mixed nuts
yes, technically its more regulation, but its government regulation. right now, the telcos are trying to regulate the internet and that’s what we’re against. the government regulation would be similar to something along the lines as “all data gets treated equally.” we’re trying to lessen the regulations that telcos are putting on the internet. i believe thats what was meant when it was said net neutrality would lessen the regulations of the internet.
Re: Re: A can of mixed nuts
Hey, lay off the name calling. Obviously “righty” didn’t understand where the left was coming from in this. I sounds to me like he is for network neutrality, but doesn’t have his facts straight.
It is really a shame that this is becoming politicised. Because I am a republican who, with being a big issue for me, will burn my registration card if they pass this. Screw tax cuts, smaller budgets (heh, Bush fails that one anyway), border security, and everything else. If they do this and take the net away (I believe providers will beat down the little guy with this) I will leave them forever. Of course then I’m a man without a party, but I think if more people looked into it they’d find that the people in this country no longer have a party to believe in on either side.
So basically, I’m saying try some honey and not vinegar. You can get a lot of republicans to agree with you on this one if you try. Basically I believe you can get any republican to agree with you on this one as lon as they’re not being @#$%#$% bribed by the telcos like the @#$!@# congress is.
Re: A can of mixed nuts
I can understand the desire to minimize regulation, and generally I agree with such an approach. Very often legislation is a limiting force on our lives.
Similarly i do not want the creative and free aspects ofthe internet limited by greedy corporate bastards.
What I’m not at all sure of is whether net neutrality would impose pointless regualtion and limitations, or whether corporate greed will stifle the creative aspects of the internet as it exists.
We really cannot trust the corporations to do what is right on those accounts. Look at the RIAA – Thugs and hooligans afraid of a changing market dynamic. The dumbasses sue their own client base.
Why should we trust the major the major telecommunications companies to not fall prey to a similarly preverse logic? That’s a serious question – not a rhetorical one?
Re: Re: A can of mixed nuts
The fact of the matter is right now the telcos don’t prioritize traffic. This law would only make it so they can’t do that in the future either.
Actaully its a pity that net neutrality would need to be put into law. But really the only reason it needs to be is because some (sellout bastards) in congress what to change the law to let the telcos have a tiered internet.
Its a disgrace that congress allowed even a minute of thougt to allowing tiered internet services.
Things Moby Doesn't Like
You know, vegetarians/vegans take a lot of guff by even liberal media, and frankly I’m sick of it. What does the fact that Moby is a Vegan have to do with his taking a stance on other issues? People who don’t get the non-violent lifestyle love to make fun of vegetarians. For me it is the same as if you trotted out “believes in Christ” for every Christian who makes the news. Or to interview Bono and ask, “so Bono, I understand you beleive in God”? You see for us it’s a deep founded part of our beleif system that says it is wrong to mistreat animals, and that if I can live without having to kill cows, sheep, pigs, baby calves, and chickens, then by God, that’s how I’m going to live my life, becasue it IS wrong. The two most discrementated against groups in the country are vegetarians and athiests, and that is predjudice thinking and it is also wrong!
Thanks to people like Moby for dedicating their time to do what they think is the right thing to do.
Re: Things Moby Doesn't Like
Stay on topic, please.
Re: Things Moby Doesn't Like
I’m a meat eater, but I’ve got to agree with you. I clicked on the link and was really surprised about the article content. The title is very misleading, and highlights an irrelevant personal choice for no reason I can see except disrespect. Obviously the author has something against vegetarians, but this isn’t the right forum for that discourse.
Athiests, though… I think they draw fire to themselves. I’m an agnostic (if anything) and I don’t understand how someone that truly doesn’t believe in God can be offended by the trivial matters that athiests cry about. Heck, I’ll say a prayer to anyone’s God or gods if you want me to… it doesn’t really matter if you don’t really believe. That said, I think we’d do well to eliminate religious conviction from policy making, but that’s another matter entirely.
Anyhow, remember when people were people? Not anymore… now we’re all vegetarians, Muslims, Republicans, or gen-X’ers. I guess we’ve figured out the secret of life – no one’s unique and we all fit neatly into stereotypes. What a boring world.
Re: Re: Things Moby Doesn't Like
ejl10:
“I clicked on the link and was really surprised about the article content. The title is very misleading, and highlights an irrelevant personal choice for no reason I can see except disrespect. Obviously the author has something against vegetarians, but this isn’t the right forum for that discourse. ”
I think the point wasn’t disrespect at all, but to point out how silly it is to care what Moby thinks on any of this. He’s a musician. His views on anything else don’t seem particularly relevant… which is the point.
It’s not a statement against vegetarians or telcos. Just how silly it is that he gets attention for his views on those things.
Things Moby Doesn't Like
You know, vegetarians/vegans take a lot of guff by even liberal media, and frankly I’m sick of it. What does the fact that Moby is a Vegan have to do with his taking a stance on other issues? People who don’t get the non-violent lifestyle love to make fun of vegetarians. For me it is the same as if you trotted out “believes in Christ” for every Christian who makes the news. Or to interview Bono and ask, “so Bono, I understand you beleive in God”? You see for us it’s a deep founded part of our beleif system that says it is wrong to mistreat animals, and that if I can live without having to kill cows, sheep, pigs, baby calves, and chickens, then by God, that’s how I’m going to live my life, becasue it IS wrong. The two most discrementated against groups in the country are vegetarians and athiests, and that is predjudice thinking and it is also wrong!
Thanks to people like Moby for dedicating their time to do what they think is the right thing to do.
Re: Things Moby Doesn't Like
Does your animal friendly house have any drywall in it? Are your shoes leather? Drywall is held together with ground-up left-over cow bits and leather shoes are made for (wait for it) dead animals. If you get mad at anti-athiest comments – why do you say “then by God”? I like the headline, and if you visit this site often – you will remember that headlines are to grab the reader’s attention and may have nothing to do with the actual content of the story.
Please remember this article is about the PR drives of the “net neutrality” issue – not an attack on veggies or the hellbound.
Re: Things Moby Doesn't Like
[i]The two most discrementated against groups in the country are vegetarians and athiests, and that is predjudice thinking and it is also wrong![/i]
Sorry to side track here, but you’ll be scoffed out of the public square MUCH more quickly for believing in Christ than not believing.
Now, back to the topic. I’m glad to see a broad range of support for single teir, neutral internet. it shows all levels and types of society don’t want to deal with internet favouritism, politically or financially driven.
tim
Debate?
I swear. I’ve been staying on top of the net neutrality “issue” for months now, and never thought of it as a debate.
To me its simple
Telcos: Hey content providers, you know how you pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for that fat internet pipe to your servers?
Content providers: Yeah?
Telcos: You didn’t think that paid for the upload so that people can download your content, did you? To many people are downloading that content, you need to pay so that people can download the content..
Content providers: Do we not have to pay for the OC-48s anymore then?
Telcos: Nope, you have to pay for that too.
Content providers: Why not just raise the price of the OC-48?
Telcos: Good idea, we’ll do that too.
Content providers: DOH!
Re: Debate?
True, not a debate — they want to dictate. Its disingenuous for the “pipe” providers to want to charge for content — although providing a special faster path for those who want to pay for it makes sense.
Internet access is really a utility. You pay for a certain speed pipe and you should be able to run it as fast as you can for as long as you want. They need to price the pipe based on that fact alone.
It would be like telling me that I need to pay a different price per kilowatt for charging my cell phone than running my refrigerator because the cell phone is “extra” content and not necessary to my day to day living.
I pay a tiered price based on my usage. The internet pipes should be the same. You want a really fast pipe, then you pay more. But that price should be based on how much it costs the company to provide it plus some percentage for profit.
The pipe providers have no right demand a share in the revenue stream of the content providers. They are utility providers. It should not matter how many bits are sent. They simply need to price the pipe appropriately.
Re: Re: Debate?
Yup!!!
Strictly Financial?
It is naive to think that anyone’s motivation is strictly financial. It may seem that way at first, but if they get their way, then what’s to stop them for charging through the roof someone whom they don’t agree with. There is always someone (or several someones) at the top in control, and they will have opinions, and will find a way to enforce those opinions.
“one whose outcome will probably be determined more by political, partisan ideology rather than any more meaningful criteria.”
So…. business as usual then?
I think this is a positive move. Maybe this will get some of our politicians to wake up to what this is really about. I think most of the republicans are still thinking this is a government regulation vs non government regulation issue and the democrats thinking this is a big business vs government issue. Both are wrong. The issue is a free market vs government monopoly. The telecos are a government sponsored monopoly, and as such they are trying to use that position to bar entry to those who don’t pay up.
F Moby
Who cares what Moby thinks, besides him? When is he coming to Boston to play the Paradise, I want to go down there and watch him get beat up again.
Strictly Financial
“…but that’s not likely to be an issue. The telcos’ motivation in this issue is not political, it’s strictly financial.”
Why can’t anyone look beyond the current situation? Sure, perhaps the telcos aren’t intending to block content they may not agree with at the moment, but if the power is there than someone will abuse it eventually. What was that saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely?
We need to think globally here. Do we really want to even give corporate powers to have the ability to unilaterally decide what we can and cannot view? Cause you know that they’re honest and just because they have the power doesn’t mean they’ll use it…riiight.
WTFU!
The real question is what is the best means to ensure that entities with market power not abuse it. By focusing on network design rather than market power, net neutrality requirements miss the mark. They would seem to apply equally to all network providers irrespective of whether they have any market power. This doesn’t make any sense. Why should an upstart wireless broadband provider be treated the same as the incumbent cable or telco monopolist?
Maybe I'm wrong...
But I thought that this was all started when some telcos tried to block VoIP traffic over there networks. That means got rid of competition that was using its network.
That doesn’t sound very fair to me. The guys own the internet, and things are converging that way. If we allow them to block the companies that compete with them, what does that solve?
Network Neutrality
“outcome will probably be determined more by political, partisan ideology rather than any more meaningful criteria.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. You’ve got MoveOn at one end and an NRA-affiliated group at the other. What the heck could be less partisan than that?
Tired of idiots running their lame-ass mouths..
Who cares WTF moby thinks…
Old School
I remember back when I first got broadband. I was told by the cable company, I could only have one computer on it. I couldn’t have a network attached (ie more then one computer).
I didn’t like that idea, I had a router, so I used it, I feel that I was paying for — one IP number and bandwidth.
Same thing (mind you) is going on in a Macro-setting now. The “providers” are saying, “Just because you pay for an T-1 doesn’t mean you actually get your 1.54 mbps… you just get to use part of it.”
Just like when I put up my router long ago, Google, m$, yahoo and the like should push back and say hey, I pay for a x-amount of bandwidth , I expect to get it.
Do what I do, write your congress people and your local provider.
RE: RE: Things Moby Doesn't Like
“Sorry to side track here, but you’ll be scoffed out of the public square MUCH more quickly for believing in Christ than not believing. ”
Are you joking with this?
Right, so this is why every President of the United States has been an athiest (or any non-christian religion, for that matter)? So this is why we have an actual office in the White House called the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives? (You think that’s the Muslim faith they are talking about?). Also, I guess this would explain why our President can proclaim that he went to Iraq because God told him to, and people just take that in stride.
You poor Christians. When will it be your turn to run this country???
Re: RE: RE: Things Moby Doesn't Like
Well, let’s see Jerry:
You can’t say a public prayer at a high school football game anymore because it might offend a non-believer.
You can’t put a Nativity scene on public property because it might offend an atheist.
Christmas programs at schools are now called like Holiday Festivals, and will mention Kwanzaa, Ramadhan, Chanukah, but will not even sing “Wish you a Merry Christmas” because of offending someone.
My question is why are all the atheists so upset about people mentioning God or Jesus? What choices in life have you been denied due to believers practicing what they do?
The main answer I usually hear is, “I don’t like it in my face… them trying to convert me and all.” That’s truly sad. From both the side that the Christian is not speaking from love and understanding the needs of their fellow-man, and also sad that the non-believer is so angry with God-fearing people that they don’t want anything to do with the God or the teachings of the Bible.