Re Net neutrality is boring us to tears

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan () telly org>
Date: Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Net neutrality is boring us to tears
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>


On 2 May 2017 at 15:11, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Yes yes yes

​Yes to what? Pandering to an ADD generation that won't pay attention to
any political issue that isn't glittered-up?

Are Canadians really that less-easily distracted
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/as-us-prepares-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-canada-strengthens-them/>
?

Mind you, in Canada the ISPs-owning-the-content nightmare is already well
underway, with every major media source not called "CBC" or "Netflix" owned
by an ISP. They own TV networks, radio networks, major net-based delivery
systems, Canadian satellites of foreign sources (ie, HGTV Canada, BBC
Canada) and even some of the country's biggest sports teams.

OTOH, we have a local cultural industry forever paranoid of Hollywood-borne
oblivion that might have been a poster child for zero rating. (Indeed, the
ISPs trotted that argument out but the regulators refused to bite).

- Evan

---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Net neutrality is boring us to tears
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
>
>
> [Note:  This item comes from friend Robert Berger.  DLH]
>
> Net neutrality is boring us to tears
> If champions of an open internet want to win this battle, maybe they need
> to rebrand.
> By Andy Martino
> May 2 2017
> <
> https://theoutline.com/post/1452/net-neutrality-is-boring-and-needs-rebranding
> >
>
> For years, whenever the words “net neutrality” came up on the news or in
> conversation, my eyes glazed over and mind wandered in a desperate search
> for any other topic. Even when the comedian John Oliver attempted to
> enliven the issue in 2014 by imagining a startup website featuring crotch
> injury videos and called “Nutflix,” I couldn’t bring myself to click on the
> video of his bit. Net. Neutrality. No thanks. Zzzzzz…
>
> It wasn’t that I was especially disengaged or abnormally incurious — it’s
> just that the term is dull. Even though it’s about free and democratic use
> of the internet, something most ordinary users would agree with, it fails
> to inspire interest, let alone outrage. “‘Net neutrality’ feels like a can
> of old gray paint,” Eli Altman, creative director of the Bay Area-based
> naming and branding agency A Hundred Monkeystold The Outline. But last
> week’s decision by FCC chair Ajit Pai to roll back net neutrality, followed
> by Monday’s news that the issue could be heading to the Supreme Court,
> created an urgent need to understand.
>
> This is not a problem for those who long been engaged in the issue, like
> open internet advocates, Reddit users, Silicon Valley workers, and tech
> journalists. Those groups are knowledgeable and energized, and might roll
> their eyes at my complaints about accessibility. But they also need to
> recognize that people like me — not overly interested in tech but concerned
> about social justice generally — are not being being reached. The prominent
> Black Lives Matter activist Deray Mckesson made this pointover the weekend,
> tweeting about the need to replace the phrase “net neutrality” with
> “better/new descriptors.”
>
> It turns out not to be a very dense or complex topic, once you force
> yourself to read about it, as I finally did after Pai’s announcement. Net
> neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) like
> Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T must give everyone equal access to everything on
> the internet. That means that even if your ISP is owned by an
> ultra-conservative Christian, it can’t decide to block porn — if it’s on
> the internet, you have to have access to it. Your ISP also can’t prioritize
> some stuff over others as a way to make extra money, or to boost its own
> content over competitors. Imagine if Verizon made stories from Yahoo News,
> for example, which it owns, load very fast, while slowing down stories from
> competing outlets.
>
> This has become more pressing as ISPs consolidate with content companies:
> Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which owns a stake in BuzzFeed and Vox Media.
> Even Google, which has positioned itself as a disruptive ISP by providing
> some cities with high speed internet, has a conflict of interest because it
> owns YouTube. In a world without net neutrality, it could be more expensive
> to communicate original thoughts and feelings online as big companies would
> always be able to pay more for exposure.
>
> Upon understanding that, I saw it as a freedom of speech issue. I became
> infuriated by the thought of my four-year-old son growing up in a world
> where the internet was not fair or democratic, even as it was the dominant
> place for discourse in the 21st century. Now we were in visceral territory
> ― but why had it taken so long to get there?
>
> “Part of it is winning the battle of what picture pops into people’s heads
> when they hear the phrase ‘net neutrality’ and right now, that picture is
> boring,” Altman said. “It’s like some blank office building. It has no real
> emotional feeling associated with it, unless you’re really deep into this
> stuff and spending all of your time in it. But if you are, that’s not who
> the name really should be marketed to.”
>
> The term “net neutrality” originated in academia, where Columbia professor
> Tim Wu coined it nearly 15 years ago — and, as Altman said with a chuckle,
> “professors generally are bad at naming.” I then asked Altman to brainstorm
> a better term, and he arrived at “data discrimination.”
>
> “Neutrality, conceptually, is boring,” Altman said. “What picture does
> neutrality bring up for you? I see Switzerland. And just kind of being very
> calm and even-handed and not stepping out strongly one way or another. The
> name feels like it’s on both sides of the issue, and that’s a problem,
> because when you dig into what net neutrality is supposed to mean, it’s
> really about anti-discrimination for data. It’s about treating data
> equally.  It’s about who decides what data … should be easily accessible.
> There are a lot of components to it that actually do feel powerful and
> emotionally engaged. And the name just doesn’t happen to strike that nerve.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
>
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/27008718-b578a3c8> |
> Modify
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170502151206:39536D78-2F6B-11E7-A5E4-F34C067F6FEF>
> <http://www.listbox.com>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto, Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170502164832:B20FE5AE-2F78-11E7-820D-D837F227E6ED
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com