Net Neutrality

Posted by Bob Weber on Aug 7th, 2006 in Government Waste, Our Changing World | 0 comments

To date, I haven’t written anything about Net Neutrality. There is a good reason for this. While I am a vehemently against telecoms restricting anyone’s access to the Internet, I also dissapprove of increased government involvement in the administration and regulation of said Internet.

Last week, my friend MJ asked me for my opinion on this issue. I thought I would post my response to her.

Over the last year there has been talk, most notably by the CEO of SBC (now AT&T) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml), accusing companies like Yahoo, Google and ebay of making money at the telecoms’ expense. This, of course, is not true since Google has to purchase connections into their facilities just like you and I purchase them into our houses. SBC also complained that they spent the capital to ‘build the pipes’ and these companies shouldn’t be able to use them. Again, this is misleading. Much of the telecom infrastructure has been funded by the US Government, for the telecoms to complain about their
capital expenditures now is a little much.

The SBC CEO’s proposed solution to this problem was to basically charge companies like Google an additional fee. If Google refuses to pay SBC could restrict or stop all traffic between their customers and Google. Of course, to date, none of this has actually happened yet.

As a potential resolution to this problem a bill in support of ‘Net Neutrality’ was introduced into Congress this spring. The concept of ‘Net
Neutrality’, again in a nutshell, basically says the government will regulate the telecoms to ensure that everyone’s traffic is carried
equally. Telecoms will not be allowed to prefer connections to one website over another, or restrict phone calls over one voip service more or less than another.

Now, what do I think of all this? I think Net Neutrality in theory is a great concept, but I also think government involvement usually causes more problems that it corrects. There is enough competition for Internet service in most major areas that no one company can have a stranglehold on the market. It is unlikely that telecoms will be able to force big companies like Google and ebay to pay their extorsion fee, due to the popularity of their services, and it’s equally unlikely that they will go after small companies – not enough profit in it. I’m not aware of any actual abuses by telecoms yet, so my feeling is let’s not get the government involved until we have to – I think the market will work the problem out itself.

Since writing this response, I have had some opportunity to think further on this matter. What is increasingly disturbing is the insidiousness of companies like Google and Ebay. They are supporting Net Neutrality legislation as being better for the consumer, when what they really want to is too support their business model. What’s best for the consumer is a free market with choices, but big Internet companies are concerned that the consumer will choose poorly. To eliminate this possibility they want the government to step in and force consumers to make the right choice.

Net Neutrality is bad, not because of the concept, but because the implementation will further degrade your rights as a US citizen.

A National Embarassment

Posted by Bob Weber on Jul 13th, 2006 in Government Waste | 0 comments

Washington D.C Police Chief, Charles H. Ramsey declared a crime emergency on Tuesday. 14 people were killed in the first 11 days of July and two groups of tourists were robbed at gunpoint on the National Mall on Tuesday alone. What an embarassment this is. Our government thinks they can keep the peace in Baghdad, but our own capital is in a shambles. Maybe we should just leave the troops in Iraq… they are probably safer there.

What I personally find even more abominable is the fact that Congress is responsible for Washington. Unlike the 50 states, Washington D.C. is under direct control of the U.S. Congress. They have the power and responsibilty for keeping the city safe. Instead they are busy sending money to Iraq, discussing gay marriage, trying to build a wall along the Mexican border and trying to make sure nobody burns the flag. This is the greatest country in the world, and Washington should be the most beautiful, peaceful, safe city in the world. Instead it’s an embarrassment to the whole world. If we can’t keep our capital safe for tourists that want to experience the history, how can we POSSIBLY think we can police the rest of the world.

I challenge our Congress and elected representatives to put a stop to this NOW. Get of your collective behinds and clean up your capital, before more people are robbed, assaulted and murdered!!!!

State troopers get new toy

Posted by Bob Weber on Jun 30th, 2006 in Government Waste | 0 comments

Colorado State Patrol is training with a new radar gun that can measure the distance between cars. The idea is the troopers can find people who are following too close and give them tickets. Personally, I HATE people that follow too close and normally try to leave a good amount of distance between cars. Part of my reasoning comes from ideas about traffic patterns. Leaving extra space between cars can actually improve traffic flow.

The question I have is why do we need a fancy new radar gun to see if anyone is following too close? Colorado law reads that a car must maintain a “reasonable and prudent distance” from the car in front. The ‘reasonable and prudent’ leaves the decision completely in the hands of the State Patrol officer. It’s kind of like ‘driving too fast for conditions’, the measurement is completely subjective. Anyone who drives Colorado highways knows that there are many motorists that follow too closely, a new gadget isn’t needed to see this, yet I don’t know anyone that has been pulled over for this. I can’t see any reason why knowing the exact distance between cars is of any use at all. Sounds like it’s just another way to waste some taxpayer money. Maybe the State Patrol is planning on writing enough tickets to cover the cost.