September 23, 2006

Net Neutrality 9-23-2006

ME Liz Strauss wrote this at 4:35 am

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Congress is clueless about the internet [via The Blog Herald]

So why am I not worried?

Because soon the next generation of elected officials are going to be people my age, people who grew up with the internet, people who instant message their friends. In the next 10, 20, and 30 years the people that are elected to office are going to be people who “get” the internet, people who understand why net neutrality is important.

Laws aren’t irreversible. In 25 years the justices on the supreme court will understand the internet - they can say that laws enacted today are unconstitutional. The people who grew up logging into Facebook and checking email will be more powerful.

The next guy in charge of the RIAA might understand why downloaded music isn’t such a bad thing. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE


Filed under Business Life, Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends |



C'mon. Let's talk!

10 Comments to “Net Neutrality 9-23-2006”

  1. September 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
    Carolyn Manning said

    Hi Liz,

    All quiet on the SB front today. Can’t have that. My mother told me once that I shouldn’t argue with idiots. She was right. The questions of Net Neutrality are coming to light, but the issues behine the scene will remain where they are; that, I believe, is politics. After the decisions are made, we can vote yes or yes because we’re given one choice in two questions. So, at the risk of sounding like I don’t care, I really don’t care. It’s their yard and their balls and they control the eraser to manipulate their rules. As you pointed out, wrong decisions have a way of being worked out in the long run.

  2. September 23rd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Hi Carolyn,
    I understand what you’re saying. It is hard to care when you’re given nothing that you can do anything about.

    Phone calls and letters to congresscritters as AdLib calls them are the only option that we have. It’s rather disheartening isn’t it?

    Your analogy of the big kids with the ball works aptly. One choice play their way or their way in the end . . .

  3. September 23rd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
    Ellen Weber said

    The part that saddens me most is that congress does not “get” the internet … and that the author “does not care!” Why? The reason that bothers me is that we need a rich pool of ideas to pull us from the slump our country hit by “not caring about what the other side knows or desires.” Each side is somewhat stong on its own. The two sides together could pool their riches in ways that we’d slide back into forward motion. I think is takes both and your post reminded me that it could still happen. As always — thanks for raising the good stuff Liz!

  4. September 23rd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Ellen,
    That bothered me too. It’s the words of someone in college . . . someone who buys that knowing is enough and doesn’t understand that people and experience need to be part of the mix.

    I was that person once that’s why I put it up. The words are probably true. The sentiment is sad. But then everything around this issue is sad.

  5. September 23rd, 2006 at 6:57 pm
    Advice Librarian said

    Not everything - I find it very heartening that someone like yourself without a Deep Technology background have picked up on why this is an important issue. I’m also impressed by the effect you must be having considering the paid astroturfers who’ve been stopping by lately.

    Sometimes, the easiest way to tell you’re having an impact is that the opposition is taking note of you specifically :)

  6. September 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Thanks AdLib,
    This isn’t about technology really . . . it’s about human nature, conflict of interests, and who says they want my lunch money on the playground. :)

  7. September 23rd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
    Advice Librarian said

    Exactly - which is why I’m happy you’re looking at the issue. People with that Deep Technology background tend to agrue strictly on technical issues - something that can quickly degenerate into exchanges of jargon that’s so opaque to outsiders that nobody but the two people talking can even tell who’s in favour of what.

    It’s a Very Good Thing to have someone like you who can look beyond that and make people who don’t speak Deep Tech or High Engineeering concentrate on who’s going to end up with your lunch money :)

  8. September 23rd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Actually, I figure most of that out by listening to you. :)

  9. September 23rd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
    Advice Librarian said

    Well, I try - though my High Engineering is ..rusty… and Deep Tech is made up of so many fields by now that sometimes I feel like I can’t even tell what their subject IS. Overspecialization will be the death of us all, when our languages become so technical we separate into different language groups :P

  10. September 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
    ME Strauss said

    When you techies separate into different language groups, we make up our silly metaphors to translate. :)

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!