Net Neutrality?

The on-going debate about the FCC’s proposed institution of formal “net neutrality” rules is becoming more heated, and both sides of the debate are stepping up the rhetoric:

“Network neutrality protects the fundamental rights of Americans in using the Internet and accessing content, applications, and services of their choice. A well-reasoned network neutrality policy also ensures a level playing field for companies large and small…” Senators Byron Dorgan (North Dakota, D) and Olympia Snowe (Maine, R)

I didn’t know Americans were at-risk in using the web, although now that you bring it up, I am concerned that any governmental regulations of the internet will surely threaten our access. And what, exactly, is a “level playing field” in the digital world?

“This is a down payment on creating a digital democracy. Today’s vote to begin the process of requiring nondiscrimination ensures, among other things, that large internet providers will be unable to block or throttle speech from competitors or those who disagree with them. The nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed fostered unprecedented opportunities for political and artistic expression.” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a media reform and digital rights group.

Excuse me, but I thought we already had a “digital democracy.” Aren’t folks able to use the web as they choose? Ask the Iranian protestors if the internet was helpful in their pursuit for freedom. Wouldn’t any attempt to “block” access necessarily be made known and result in a backlash against the offending provider (unless it was illegal to do so, hmmm)?

Also, I’ve got to think that “the nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed” mentioned in the above quote remains in place today, thank you. Although the government could change that with these “hard” neutrality rules.

“I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.” Barbara Eosin, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank.

This seems reasonable to me. What’s the crisis? What pending “crisis” will these rules prevent?

“As the FCC’s Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow.” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

Unless I am wrong, it seems that the largest investors in the internet infrastructure, those like Comcast and other major providers, are possibly going to suffer the biggest losses if net neutrality is implemented. After spending billions on pipelines, the government now wants them to take their hands off any controls and offer everyone the same access, regardless of need for capacity or speed? This just seems wrong to me. Talk about stealing incentives.

Also, remember the day you paid more for usage over a certain amount? I’d guess that Comcast and others will resort to such “tiered service levels” if the government persists in this “neutrality” business.

“It is risky business for regulators to mess with a technologically dynamic environment that is working well for American consumers and the economy.” Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank.

Well said, Mr. May.

Alright, I’ve spoken a bit of my mind. Obviously I am a free-market guy on this one, and in favor of letting those with the pipes have some control over their own expenses and income. I am also leery of the government’s idea of “fairness” – sorry, I just don’t trust the Feds to truly do the right thing here (or almost anywhere, frankly).

How about you? Reactions? What’s your take on this debate?

Eureka! The Benefits of Daydreaming

You’ll probably agree with the premise of this WSJ piece by Robert Lee Hotz. You know intuitively that this is right. And you may even yearn for what is described:

…Our brain is most actively engaged when our mind is wandering…

The article cites research that supports the benefits of daydreaming, and notes that those who have had historically significant “Aha!” moments discovered something important when they were allowing their minds to wander.

Now, don’t use this research as an excuse for being inattentive and lazy; rather, consider the need in your life for some downtime, some space. That means getting away from the phone/laptop/paperwork and the crush of the routine, and giving your mind permission to sort, ponder and discover.

Related: You might want to get this classic book, Margin, by Dr. Richard Swenson. He illustrates this same kind of principle by referring to ink on a page. Nobody can read a book that has text running from top to bottom, side to side, without any margin. That white space that every book (and indeed, every website) has surrounding the text allows the brain to process and understand. In the same way, we need “margins” in our lives, so we don’t overstimulate and overload.

And, in this audio discussion, Dr. Archibald Hart offers a scientific look at anhedonia, a condition in which an individual is addicted to overstimulation. It is a growing problem, especially amongst younger people who are constantly bombarded by sensory input.

Maybe today will mark the start of something different for you? Turn off the electronics, get away from the calendar and let your mind wander. Who knows, you may discover something really, really big!

Music Sharing, Downloading and Money

John C. Dvorak has some insights about the RIAA and the continued downward spiral of CD sales. Read it here.

Parents on Facebook

Here’s a site every parent with a teen or college student should check out. The Facebook phenomena is something you can and should be knowledgable about, these tips are a good starting point.

BTW, I’m on Facebook to keep up with a couple of my own children. I’ve enjoyed meeting some of their friends, and seeing some of the photos and updates they post!

Finally, A Change of Direction

News of a sensible decision by the Recording Industry Association of America from the Wall Street Journal.

Death of Online Music Sales?

Could be. From the New York Times:

In a decision closely watched by the music industry, a panel of federal judges who determine royalty rates for recordings ruled on Thursday to renew the current royalty rate for CDs and other physical recordings, while setting rates for the first time for downloads, ring tones and other services.

Read the details and wonder about the future of currently popular song-selling ventures. They could be forced out of business by these rates.

More “Free”

There’s some video of Chris Anderson at Wired magazine about the new “free economics.”

Here’s the main page of video and the 6,000-word introduction to Anderson’s ideas.

And it is all…free!

Kids With iPods

Ad Age cites a recent study with some rather shocking stats about how a growing number of younger children have their own MP3 players. Hard to believe, but I guess I’m just old-fashioned and guilty of sheltering my kids.

Some 31% of kids ages 6 to 10 now use digital-music players, with iPod as the brand of choice for 54% of them. Most cited the Nano as the version they use.

Something is wrong here…

New Tech, Old Ethics?

NYTimes writer Saul Hansell evaluates a new service that is interesting – not only for it’s technical aspects but also because of the ethical approach. The start-up is called Cellware.
The issue? Sharing MP3 audio, particularly copyrighted songs that ought not to be shared.

Well, maybe it isn’t sharing? How about multi-purposing something I already own?

On the other hand, the site makes it incredibly easy for people to upload MP3 files of songs and then send 20 second clips of them to their own cellphones to use as ringtones. Mr. Ferber said Cellware does not filter out copyrighted content for this aspect of the service because it deems that this falls within the fair use doctrine — the rights of someone who buys a copyrighted work to use it in certain ways, such as to make backup copies of software.

Pretty common-sense to me. And perfectly legit, if I recall that old court ruling about videotaping network television shows for later viewing. Wasn’t that the “Betamax case?”

Personally, I am excited about his kind of repurposing of content already – legally – in my library. What do you think?

Media Violence Influences Behavior

Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the shooting victims in Omaha. What a horrific event, so random and so unnecessary. May God give grace and comfort to those who are hurting and grieving right now.

I had written this draft a few days ago, and in light of the horrific news from Omaha, it seems all the more timely to post it now.

From Focus on the Family’s pressroom earlier this week:

According to a new study released yesterday from the University of Michigan, children’s repeated exposure to violent television and video games is the strongest predictor of violence in adulthood. The study supports what has been long suspected: viewing violent “entertainment” and participating in “virtual violence” have profoundly serious implications for society.

Check out the entire article for some compelling insights about the influence of the media on behavior.

What are you letting your children (or grandchildren) watch? And when we will awaken to the factors involved in senseless killings?