Connect with us

Science and Tech

Setting the record straight on Net Neutrality

Published

on

The bottom line about net neutrality is about liberty, freedom, and being able to make a living.  The government is just looking for more ways to control and stifle human freedom.  Socialism knows no bounds, and net neutrality is using pre-internet rules that sound good, but feel good and in the long run does not advance liberty.  But don’t worry, net neutrality might make a come back should the Democrats get back in.

In the meantime, I have several links to commentary that tries to show people that wanting to the state to regulate the internet is not a good ideal. From Senator Ted Cruz to conservative hard rocker Alfonzo Rachel.

Further Reading

Sen. Cruz: ‘The Internet Should Be Free of Taxation, Censorship and Regulation’

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3548“Since its inception, the internet has been an oasis of freedom. It has not only been a haven for free speech but has served as a great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity by dramatically reducing the barriers of entry for anyone with a new idea and broadband connection. The Obama administration’s so-called net neutrality regulations have threatened the very freedom that has allowed the internet to flourish by placing the internet under 83-year-old public utility regulations that gives sweeping power to unelected bureaucrats who would have the ability to dictate every aspect of the internet. Small businesses in Texas and across the country shouldn’t have to seek ‘Mother May I’ permission from unelected bureaucrats to be able to engage in commerce. It’s un-American and has the power to severely limit the creative destruction that has allowed the internet to flourish.

Net Neutrality Isn’t Neutral At All – Foundation for Economic Education – Working for a free and prosperous world

https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-isnt-neutral-at-all/Net neutrality has been getting so many “hot takes” lately, it almost makes you wish someone would be non-neutral about this content and block it. These have come during the run-up to today’s Federal Communications Commission vote, which will likely reverse the Commission’s June 2015 reclassification of internet service providers as Title II (of the 1934 Communications Act) telecommunication common carriers.

So-called “edge providers” (like FAMGA – Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon) are contract carriers. They, like a typical market service, provide their content and apps subject to mutual agreement. From the beginning of the commercial internet until the 2015 reclassification, this was true of internet service providers, too. Their reclassification as common carriers, however, made ISPs subject to FCC regulation, like telecommunications companies and other public utilities are. The primary stated aim of this reclassification was to ensure access neutrality for online content.

FCC Restores Market Freedom To the Internet

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268735/fcc-restores-market-freedom-internet-joseph-kleinThe Federal Communications Commission has jettisoned the heavy-handed regulatory burden placed on a free and open Internet during the Obama administration. The FCC voted 3-2 on December 14th, along party lines, to repeal the so-called “net neutrality” rules adopted by the regulatory agency in 2015. The Obama-era rules had prohibited Internet service providers, such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast as well as smaller Internet service providers, from blocking, slowing access to or charging more (priority pricing) for fast delivery of content above some specified threshold of high bandwidth usage. High-speed delivery of Internet services will no longer be heavily regulated on par with a common carrier utility monopoly service. However, the Internet service providers will have to disclose to the FCC changes to their access policies, which can consider any alleged abuses on a case by case basis. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust enforcement responsibility with the Department of Justice, will be tasked to take action against any anti-competitive behavior.

Net neutrality is dead. Long live the internet

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/net-neutrality-is-dead-long-live-the-internetYou may be confused. It is a day after the FCC voted 3-2 to end net neutrality rules, and the world has not ended. Nor has the internet. Spoiler alert: Ending net neutrality isn’t going to have any effect on your life at all.

By now you’ve seen posts in your Facebook feed from your liberal friends, and even some of your not-liberal friends buying into the notion that net neutrality being gone is going to kill the internet.

Entertainment and Sports

Man who identifies as transgender woman wins Cycling World Championships

Published

on

Man who identifies as transgender woman wins Cycling World Championships

Rachel McKinnon. a transgender woman who was born male and possesses all the physical advantages of a man, won the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles. It’s the latest event that draws questions about the fairness of biological males competing in female events.

Despite outcry by biological females and men alike, it is being billed by some as a victory for the LGBTQ community and transgender men or women around the world. Critics point out that biological males have an unfair advantage over biological females when it comes to activities that require physical strength, speed, or endurance. That doesn’t seem to deter those competing in these events.

Biological Male Wins World Championship Event in Women’s Cycling

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/14/biological-male-wins-world-championship-event-in-womens-cycling/McKinnon celebrated the victory on Twitter, writing: “First transgender woman world champion … ever.” Later, the professor responded to criticism from “transphobic bigots” by tweeting:

Allowing biological males who identify as transgender women to compete in women’s athletic events has been a controversial subject, as critics argue that it puts female competitors at an inherent disadvantage.

My Take

Unlike some of my colleagues, I have no problem with transgenderism. What I have a problem with is the unfairness of women’s competitive sports being infiltrated by those who have clear and scientifically demonstrable biological advantages over their competitors.

If performance enhancing drugs are frowned upon in sports, what could be more performance-enhancing than growing up with the musculature and hormone advantage of a man, then competing in women’s sports?

Continue Reading

Quotes

Marsha Blackburn on the state of the net

Published

on

Marsha Blackburn on the state of the net

Tennessee Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn has been a proponent of internet freedom since before it became a hot topic. She pushed for recognition of the potential problems that can arise if progressives get their way with a heavily regulated internet.

Seven years ago, when many Republicans were learning how to set up a Twitter account, Blackburn was preparing conservatives for the fight they had coming. Our online rights were going to get attacked by the left and the Obama administration was well on its way towards making their vision of net neutrality a reality.

One particular moment of a speech she gave in 2011 stands out:

Conservatives must not let big government, regulation, or taxation limit the long term potential of the Creative Economy, as it has already done with the industrial sector.

Regulation hampers innovation. Taxation stunts growth. Big government suffocates all. These premises don’t just align in the real world. In the digital world, they are even more prevalent. Marsha Blackburn understands this. Make her a Senator, Tennessee.

Continue Reading

Economy

Reminder: Tech Giants are not monopolies

Published

on

Reminder Tech Giants are not monopolies

There is a lot of disgust aimed towards tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. And why not? These companies are large, incredibly biased, and quite powerful. Their reach is everywhere, striving towards omnipresence. Their influence can sway public opinion, as evident on issues such as Net Neutrality and to reach back for a more benign issue, SOPA 2014. Another concern is the pubic safety of personal information. Data breaches, hacks, and leaks are all significant risks. In China, Google has assisted the government with the surveillance of their people. And while public safety is an issue, the solution of regulating these large companies as monopolies is fraudulent in its premise. The enact anti-trust laws would ignore the simple fact: neither Google, Facebook, or Twitter are monopolies.

Antitrust

But denotation doesn’t stop individuals from advocating action. Kurt Schlicter of Townhall wrote a fiery piece advocating for serious regulation.

And what’s also scary is their willful manipulation of the algorithms that determine what can and cannot be said and read. If you don’t exist on Google, in many ways, you really don’t exist at all. Well, that’s intolerable. Our free society conducts its business on the Internet, and if one unaccountable, partisan group can decide what topics can and cannot be discussed, we no longer have a free society. We’d have a fascist one, and fascists are bad even if those fascists swill kombucha tea, bike to work at a Mountain View campus, and spew ridiculous mottos like “Don’t be evil.”

By definition, a monopoly is when a single firm has absolute market share. Yet the federal government has its own definition. And that definition is comprised in the form of antitrust laws. Ryan Cooper of The Week proposed:

It could be that careful anti-trust action could build a market with several search competitors, and thereby create some competition. But certainly all search platforms should be forced to follow something like a railroad’s common carriage rules, where websites are not allowed to be ranked according to how much they might profit the platform itself, and get fair access to search traffic.

This action would break Google apart into several companies and only enrich Google shareholders. The Google splinters would crush the actual competitors of Google rendering making this polygopoly a more clear monopoly for the shareholders than it was already before. Historically speaking, the Rockefellers gained an immense amount of wealth after Standard Oil broke apart. Again it must be said about how Coopers supposition is a flagrant misuse of antitrust law.

Suicidal?

Microsoft’s battle in the 1990s is a crowning misuse of antitrust law. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly because they put their own software, internet explorer, on their own operating system, Windows. What Microsoft did was clear business instinct. Yet the feds and several states wanted to split them up. Their plan ultimately failed but the precedent remains. In 1999, Milton Friedman referred to companies seeking to break up Microsoft as suicidal, seeking action that would one day be used against them.

“Under the circumstances, given that we do have antitrust laws, is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft? Your industry, the computer industry, moves so much more rapidly than the legal process, that by the time this suit is over, who knows what the shape of the industry will be. Never mind the fact that the human energy and the money that will be spent in hiring my fellow economists, as well as in other ways, would be much more productively employed in improving your products. It’s a waste! But beyond that, you will rue the day when you called in the government. From now on the computer industry, which has been very fortunate in that it has been relatively free of government intrusion, will experience a continuous increase in government regulation. Antitrust very quickly becomes regulation. Here again is a case that seems to me to illustrate the suicidal impulse of the business community.”

The USFL is another clear example where using antitrust was literally business suicide. The United States Football League launched in 1983 as a spring alternative to the NFL. Yet in their poor management, they moved to fall where the NFL had all of the TV contracts and sued the NFL for antitrust. In truth, their very existence disproved the notion that the NFL was a monopoly, also the existence of college football. The USFL invested everything into the antitrust suit and won $3 dollars($1 tripled).

Competition

Google/ Alphabet

Search Engine, adsales, appstore, Youtube, email, consumer electronics, operating systems, big data, web browser, programs, social network etc.
  • Verizon (Yahoo, AOL) – failed internet giant, search engine, adsales, email
  • Apple – fellow tech giant, consumer electronics, app store, operating system
  • Microsoft – operating systems, direct competitor to Google’s word processing platform, web browser(sort of), app store, search engine
  • DuckDuckGo – private search engine
  • Opera – web browser, free VPN/ adblock
  • Brave – web browser with adblock
  • Netflix – content streaming platform
  • Hulu – Content streaming platform
  • TV – not a company but a replacement for Youtube
  • Yelp – review website

Facebook

Social networks, text app for europeans,
  • Twitter – microblogging platform
  • Minds – social network
  • Snapchat – picture messaging, social network
  • Craigslist – localized ad sales
  • Reddit – online community based on interest
  • Myspace – Technically still a thing, rebranded as a music page
  • Codias – political social network

Twitter

Microblogging platform
  • WordPress – webhosting, blogging platform
  • Gab – Turkish microblogging platform
  • Steemit – cryptocurrency social network for original content creators
  • Kialo – social media platform for civil debate
  • Micgoat – video/blogging platform for debate

Conclusion

As you can see, Google is so large and expansive, they cannot be considered a monopoly, for their is competition every industry they are in. Their most serious competitors are other tech giants, like Microsoft and Apple. Facebook has numerous competitors as does Twitter. Just because their competition lacks prominence, doesn’t mean there is a monopoly.

The titans of tech are not monopolies, nor should we want them treated as such. Treating Facebook as a monopoly would create at least three large companies. And these newly divided large companies would eventually merge together and crush the alternative social platforms that currently exist. Rather these platforms would benefit from these companies remaining large and having bad PR. These companies will create innovations and capitalize on their fall should they end up like Yahoo or Kodak.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report