Game Theory Computer Model Backs Net Neutrality 315
Stu writes "'A world without net neutrality is one devoid of intellectual development' said Sir Tim Berners Lee in a presentation to congress last week. Well, now there's a computer model that uses game theory to back that forecast up. Developed at the University of Florida, the model shows that everyone loses if the IPs get their way — even, eventually, the IPs."
What's an IP? (Score:5, Informative)
FTFS:
What is an IP? It can't be an intellectual property, since they don't have will, so they can't get their way. I'm pretty sure it can't be internet protocol.
Did you perhaps mean ISP?
Please, no more comments (Score:3, Informative)
My take: the real fear is monopoly control of the Internet. Since monopolies are a problem independent of the Internet, we need to strengthen anti-monopoly laws rather than pretend we're living like it's 1969 on the ARPANET.
Apostate! Heretic! (Score:5, Informative)
Many geeks grew up as outsiders. We were smarter, but lacked social skills. Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual. One thing many geeks have adopted is just the opposite, a respect for all things intellectual, to distinguish ourselves from them.
Do you see where this is going?
You come on a geek message board spouting anti-intellectualism, "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves." You have just identified yourself as "one of them," an outsider, probably anti-intellectual, most likely of the same sort that picked on many of us as kids.
Proper spelling and grammar are one of our shibboleths, along with Natalie Portman, hot grits, and Beowulf clusters. It isn't primarily about communication, although that is a factor. It is about identity. We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are.
When people here correct your spelling or grammar, they are really just trying to carry on our culture, and help you fit in. You don't have to, but if you don't, you will be seen as an outsider by many here. That's just how it is with people. You know the old saying, "When in Rome..."
Re:Please, no more comments (Score:4, Informative)
It's called an oligopoly, and it's almost as bad.
Re:And that is exactly why .... (Score:5, Informative)
It 1968, the FCC's Carterfone decision allowed non-Bell equipment to be attached to their phone lines. This led to the adoption of things like answering machines, cordless phones, and modems, all of which were banned by Ma Bell before then (so they could rent 300 bps modems for $25/month to those who really needed them).
In 1969, the FCC's MCI Decision allowed leased lines to be provided by competitive carriers. This made long-haul backbone lines cheaper. Dial-up long distance was supposed to remain a monopoly. But around 1975, MCI figured out a trick, started its Execunet service, and while the FCC opposed it once it figured out what was going on, by 1978 a court held that it was okay. That led to the rules for LD carriers that are still in effect, wherein they pay local phone companies "access" minute of use rates at both ends of a call.
In 1980, the FCC's Computer II Decision held that terminal equipment (what Carterfone permitted to become competitive) should no longer be tariffed at all, so it would become fully competitive and deregulated in 1983. It also held that "enhanced" services could only be provided by phone companies via a "fully separate subsidiary" that purchased "basic" services on the same terms as an unaffiliated party. This is the specific rule that was revoked in 2005, effective 2006, causing the Network Neutrality problem. Under Computer II, any ISP could use the Bells' DSL for a tariffed price. That is no longer the case; ISPs have no right to use Bell wire at all.
In 1982, AT&T and the Department of Justice agreed to the Modified Final Judgement, the Divestiture, which broke AT&T into pieces effective 1/1/84. At the time, long distance was seen as competitive but local phone service was not. So the "Baby Bells" were allowed to remain monopolies, providing "access" to LD companies, and local dialtone, at regulated rates.
In 1996, the Telecom Act opened up local competition in all states. It recognized that the Bells had an advantage of incumbency, a network already in place, so it required them to provide components on an "unbundled" basis, priced based on loaded long run incremental cost, to competitors. The FCC enforced this from 1996 to 2001.
In 2001, a Republican FCC majority began to roll back pro-competition rules, finding or imagining loopholes in the Telecom Act. So now it is very hard or impossible for competitive telcos (who serve ISPs, often affiliates) to get access to Bell wire at all. Again, the idea is to allow the Bells to have total control of the content of their wire -- the opposite of neutrality. FCC chairman Kevin Martin is an unabashed Bell (and rural incumbent telco -- they're even worse) lover and does practically anything to please them. But the new Congress is less impressed with him than the old one.