Via Pajamas Media, I found myself drawn to John Carroll's remarks about the so-called "net neutrality" issue:
Where faster tiered access might affect things, however, is in Google's new video service, the revenue for which will mostly be paid by ads. If broadband providers are allowed to tier access, companies such as Google might have to pay a bit of that money to broadband providers to get themselves onto a faster tier…unless they want end users to pay for the privilege.
That, to my mind, is the crux of the issue. Google and companies that support net neutrality rules (a group that may even include Microsoft, but I am John Carroll, not Microsoft, in case anybody was wondering) want to be able to continue as 18 wheelers who pay the same fees (if any) as standard automobiles, even though their traffic is responsible for most damage to the road. That's one model, and is largely the way things work now, but that doesn't mean it is a fair model.
Fairness aside, the current Internet works for the most part according to de facto net neutrality rules. Why change things? Well, I've already suggested some pragmatic reasons to have different tiers. Video streaming will take up a lot more bandwidth than standard text and image transfer.
Yes, I'm afraid that too much Google and too much Gore have reminded me (all over again) of Gore's video remarks in a speech last fall:
First, as exciting as the Internet is, it still lacks the single most powerful characteristic of the television medium; because of its packet-switching architecture, and its continued reliance on a wide variety of bandwidth connections (including the so-called "last mile" to the home), it does not support the real-time mass distribution of full-motion video.
Make no mistake, full-motion video is what makes television such a powerful medium. Our brains - like the brains of all vertebrates - are hard-wired to immediately notice sudden movement in our field of vision. We not only notice, we are compelled to look. When our evolutionary predecessors gathered on the African savanna a million years ago and the leaves next to them moved, the ones who didn't look are not our ancestors. The ones who did look passed on to us the genetic trait that neuroscientists call "the establishing reflex." And that is the brain syndrome activated by television continuously - sometimes as frequently as once per second. That is the reason why the industry phrase, "glue eyeballs to the screen," is actually more than a glib and idle boast. It is also a major part of the reason why Americans watch the TV screen an average of four and a half hours a day.
It is true that video streaming is becoming more common over the Internet, and true as well that cheap storage of streamed video is making it possible for many young television viewers to engage in what the industry calls "time shifting" and personalize their television watching habits. Moreover, as higher bandwidth connections continue to replace smaller information pipelines, the Internet's capacity for carrying television will continue to dramatically improve. But in spite of these developments, it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America's democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America's democracy is at grave risk.
The final point I want to make is this: We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it because some of the same forces of corporate consolidation and control that have distorted the television marketplace have an interest in controlling the Internet marketplace as well. Far too much is at stake to ever allow that to happen.
In other words, he wants to be elected? Or does he just have Google Video Gore on the brain?
Father of the Internet forgive me, but I'm too tired to Google for more. . . .
MORE: Tired as I am, an evil contest held by John Hawkins gave me an idea for a hybrid.
(Or do such things constitute parody infringement?)
posted by Eric on 06.02.06 at 10:06 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3669
Comments
That looks more like a goremlin than a goregoyle. Whatever the case, let him be on tv (or internet video or whatever)all he wants. His ratings will flop anywhere he goes. Nobody's intersted in him anymore.
Mick · June 2, 2006 03:44 PM
To be a gargoyle, he should be attached to a building with water pouring from his mouth. I think the expression is more gargoyle than gremlin, although the body is that of a gremlin model. (A gremlin can be a gargoyle, of course, which means a goremlin can also be a goregoyle.)
BTW, Dick Morris says that only Al Gore can stop Hillary:
Basically, you have content providers (Google, Microsoft, etc.), access providers (your ISP), and consumers (you!). Under a net neutrality arrangement (written into law rather than as a simple standard), this setup means that the access providers are stuck with the cost of the content providers' material. They don't hold it though; they pawn the cost off on the consumer. Now, the content providers would do the same thing, but here's the difference.
Imagine that the postal system is the access provider and content providers are every magazine and junk mailer in the world. If the charge for the cost of mailing fell on you for RECEIVING the material, there would be no real interest on the part of people who SEND material to conserve bandwidth (added to this, people who don't consume lots will get hit with costs for things they don't really use, because for the analogy to work, the postal system would have to be financed by the government through taxation on everyone with a mailbox).
Instead, in our postal system, the sender is the one who is charged. They get money, in some way, from people interested in subscribing to their service, and they have every reason to want to conserve bandwidth.
We already get too much junk-mail today. Imagine if we paid for it instead of the mailer. Scary.
Jon Thompson · June 2, 2006 11:17 PM
Jon,
That Richard Bennett link is very informative, and explains the complexities in lay terms.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
That looks more like a goremlin than a goregoyle. Whatever the case, let him be on tv (or internet video or whatever)all he wants. His ratings will flop anywhere he goes. Nobody's intersted in him anymore.