Re: seems like we also need PLATFORM "neutrality"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: <anp () bobf frankston com>
Date: November 2, 2009 11:10:18 AM EST
To: <gd () greaterdemocracy org>, "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [gd] seems like we also need PLATFORM "neutrality"

Their business model is indeed the same as railroads -- http://frankston.com/?N=RailRoads 
 – force people to buy transport from you and set a price so you can  
take a cut of the value created by the users.

Neutrality, like common carriage, is an attempt to return the horse to  
the barn. A useful talking point but problematic. So let’s stop  
talking about those old networks and shift to Ambient Connectivity  
which doesn’t provide a sinecure for such business models.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Warren [mailto:jwarren () well com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 19:13
To: Dave Farber
Subject: [gd] seems like we also need PLATFORM "neutrality"

There's been massive citizen support for "net neutrality" - to assure
that the content CARRIERS do not choke or restrict user access to
content PROVIDERS - especially not when the carrier provides CONTENT
and seeks to discourage users' access to "competing" content.

(This is like railroads in the 19th Century.  Some rr's used their
transport monopoly in communities to selectively charge rapacious
rates, and block access for anyone competing with their non-rail
businesses.  Their arrogance and abuses eventually led Congress to
create the ICC - Interstate Commerce Commission - to regulate the
transportation industry that was and remains so crucial to citizens
and the nation.)

It's dejavu all over again:

Apple blocks iPhone users from choosing their own cell-service
provider (in the USA, but apparently not in Communist China!);
prohibits Adobe's Flash app on iPhones and iPods and thus blocks user
access to Flash CONTENT; blocks Netflix from access via [some] Apple
computers, etc.

Apple is doing this for EXACTLY the same reason that the railroads
abused their position, and that the conglomerated communications
cartel opposes content neutrality:  Apple is using its position as a
PLATFORM-maker to block access to CONTENT if it "competes" with
Apple's content or their monopoly deal with AT&T.

How long will it be before ALL equipment makers and communications
carriers finish Balkinizing access and choking CONTENT providers into
subservience to equipment-makers' and communications-carriers'
all-powerful whims?

I'm no fan of regulation, but - as with the all-powerful 19th Century
railroads - maybe it's time to have "neutrality" legislation
prohibiting PLATFORM manufacturers from using their power to block
citizens' access to CONTENT (including applications) that users could
otherwise access via those platforms.

Or we could just let the "free" market decide, so powerless citizens
can pay more and more, to access less and less, and have fewer and
fewer content-providers, all subservient to the gadget makers and
comm carriers.

--jim; open-govt & tech-civlib advocate & sometime columnist
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Warren
   justjim36 on twitter  |  Jim Warren on Facebook




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com