[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”jqHfdeb7F6lDN38IeV0lSf8Avyx9cp2I”]
THE president, I’m pleased to say, has now taken a fair and reasonable stance on an issue that exerts a strong effect on the creative class. Do we want the web to be skyboxed– the rich over here, in the good seats, the rest over there, fighting for crumbs — the way American society is? I don’t, and that’s what net neutrality, in its simplest form, is about — keeping the playing field level so that independent artists have access to the same kind of web that deep-pocketed corporations do. “Simply put: No service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee,” President Obama said.
Here’s Obama on “common carriage”:
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmi
ssion of information—whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
The artists advocacy group, Future of Music Coalition, puts it this way:
Today, President Barack Obama stood with millions of Americans across political linesin urging the Federal Communications Commissionto preserve an open and accessible Internet. This is a huge deal for all Internet users, including artists, whose creative expression, sites and services must not be discriminated against on the whims of a few powerful Internet Service Providers, like Comcast andVerizon.
… This isn’t a partisan issue. In fact, it’s probably the least partisan issue out there. At its core, net neutrality is about everyone’s ability to participate in a free market powered by creativity, innovation and connectivity. We applaud the president for standing up for what millions of Americans on both sides of the aisle are already demanding: real net neutrality that allows anyone—and not just those with the deepest pockets—to communicate, create and inspire.
Even as someone skeptical about the migration of culture to the Internet, I can applaud this. If that’s where the creative class will have to ply their trade, CutureCrash wants the game to be fair.
Obama’s statement and video here. The New York Times story is here.
Senator Ted Cruz made a characteristic dumbass comment about Obama’s position; an excellent retort is here.
I’m glad Obama has spoken for net neutrality, but there is a hidden message in his comment that is very alarming: the definition of computers and the net as a “utility.” The computer industry is moving us away from owning our own autonomous computers and software to a system where all software will be online and we must pay monthly fees to access it. This might ultimately be a bigger threat to people than even breaches of net neutrality.
Companies like Microsoft and Adobe have already moved to a system where software is only rented, and where we must continually register with the company to use it. This greatly increases their profits and people’s costs for using computers. It is also especially important for the corporations, because every technology flattens out after an initial burst of growth in its first decades. We’ve reached the theoretical limits for the speed of processors, and most of our software has reached levels of refinement that require few or no updates. To maintain profits the companies must move from a system of owning software which remains useful for years, to one where we pay monthly rental costs to use it online even though virtually nothing significant is being done to improve the software, nor needs to be
And worse, the power this concept of the computer as an online utility gives the plutocracy power over our freedom of expression that is enormous. At any time we could be cut off from this online rental utility for this or that transgression. Or its monthly charges could be raised to levels that only an elite can use its most effective versions. Or we could eve be charged by the minute thus constraining our expression. Why bother controlling net neutrality when even the use of computers and software will be broken down into a class system based on paying for various levels of access to online software. And since the software is online, it can be changed at any time to control what can be accomplished with it. And since it is online, its use can be monitored in total detail. Who’s reading my cloud drive?
There is a kind of horror in the idea of computers as an online utility, and yet Silicon Valley has been pushing this concept for several about 15 years — and especially Cisco Systems. Whose agenda is Obama furthering by referring to the net as a utility – and especially under a neoliberal system where even utilities like water supplies are being privatized and exploited? I don’t want a utility meter put on my computer. A system that is “free and open” will become “costly, closed, and monitored with totalizing completeness.”
This strikes me as a good point.
The amount of virtue and vice in the government employees is equal to the amount of virtue and vice in the general population. They are not going to provide a greater degree of neutrality than the market, as imperfect as the market is. As a matter of fact, no president has been more interested in using the government agencies to punish political enemies than Obama. Catherine Engelbrecht had inquiries and investigations from the IRS, FBI. ATF, and OSHA just because she tried to start two conservative non-profits.
Do you really think Obama believes in net neutrality? He believes more control will be useful under the guise of net neutrality. This might not be a concern of people that agree with Obama’s politics, but you can be sure that you’ll never be free to change your mind or you will pay. For example, the big tech companies have been big supporters of the Democrats. But now they realize the federal government is not going to help them with cleaning up the patent mess. And the federal government has gotten very big and inefficient, and no one is ever held accountable. The VA mess and the Obamacare website are two examples. But in order for these companies to continue to innovate they need a government that is efficient and accountable, just like they have to be to some degree to customers, shareholders, and lawyers ready to bring class action lawsuits. If they change their political donations, then they will find the Internet neutrality will all of sudden hit them hard for political reasons masked as neutrality reasons.