BF2S Forums How much government involvement in the internet is okay?

which is why i said they were one of the few aspects of telecom that the government should be involved in

cause y'all love your eskimo neighbours to the south, duh

With a few exceptions (stopping kiddy porn being one), government censorship and logging is bad.  Due to the dubious nature/motivation of recent arrests here, I consider that involvement in download sites should be generally a "hands off" thing, even though I don't use said sites.  Oh, Kim dotcom got bail, finally.

Concerning regulation/infrstructure involvement, whatever option ensures the best quality of service for the end user is that which I support, and this does vary depending on the country in concern.  We've had very little regulation and a near-monopoly for as long as I can remember;- I pay $70NZD (50USD)/month for ADSL2+, and a 20GB data cap (was recently 10...), whilst being totally aware that people in other countries pay a quarter of that for 10mbit+ and no data cap.  No prizes for guessing where my opinion on infrastructure/monopoly regulation lies.

Turquoise wrote:

We really need to mimic South Korea's setup for internet.  They've got the best system in the world.

Because their whole economy runs on star craft but they're really highly urbanized which explains their speeds.

Infrastructure wise: I found it very interesting how local city governments in the US are able to provide really high speed internet on the cheap, maybe a model for USA where the local city governments can provide fast internet services.

To produce child porn you need to abuse a child. If there is a demand/market for the porn more would be made. If making it hard to get and putting penalties on viewing lessens demand and reduces the market then there would be less child abuse.

jord wrote:

if a guy is turned on by kids then isnt blocking images of kids just going to make him get his kiddy sexual satisfaction out in the real world?

naw they got shit like this to get their sexual satisfaction



At first i was like: lol silly midgets
then i was like: oh shit theyre kids wtf

"The Pirate Bay may have outlived its piracy lifespan but is a small task to mirror the site or to copy the indices. Even if The Pirate Bay is closed down people will just have to type 'torrent' into Google to find page after page of links," said Mr Mulligan.

He believes that the content industries are likely to turn their attention to search engines in their ongoing battle to cut down on pirated content online. UK rights holders have already called for illegal content to be "forcibly demoted" in web searches.

"If the content industries get Google on board the problem disappears from the mainstream overnight," he said.

The UK government has signalled its intention to look again at how it can stop search engines linking to pirated content in its new Communications Act. The US is also planning similar legislation in its controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17125905

What this amounts to is somebody deciding what websites are allowed to appear on google. Yup that sounds great but think of your standard internet security settings that block things that are perfectly legitimate while letting you access things that shouldn't be.

Then we have the forced removal of youtube videos protesting the SOPA legislation because they "inflicted copyright" when in reality they were completely original works with no copyright infringement yet they were still removed from the internet.

Its great trying to "ban" piracy but you have to be very careful that the law makers actually have some sort of idea about the technology they are legislating. Most business experts that will be in consultation with governments are those with a vested interest in controling what appears online, those that dont do not have the influence and are grossly under represented.

There is the assumption that things didnt happen before the internet such as copyright infringement, terrorism or child porn but this is far from the truth. Driving something underground does not stop it from happening. Look at the war on drugs. You cannot just make something illegal and expect it to stop. Law is supposed to define things which are socially unacceptable, it is not there to reshape society as one sees fit, sure try it but it is not going to have the desired results.

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We really need to mimic South Korea's setup for internet.  They've got the best system in the world.

Because their whole economy runs on star craft but they're really highly urbanized which explains their speeds.

Infrastructure wise: I found it very interesting how local city governments in the US are able to provide really high speed internet on the cheap, maybe a model for USA where the local city governments can provide fast internet services.

The problem is that I guess private telecoms realize this.

It's why they've lobbied hard in every state to block the creation of new public ISPs for small towns.  My state is unfortunately one of the states that got bought off.

Then why don't you start up a non-profit ISP? Public utilities always work well. Keep nominal prices down by raising the price in other places i.e. taxes. It's a great way to get the rich guy to pay for the poor guys bills. Too bad everyone ends up paying more in the end because public utilities have zero incentive to keep costs down.

Swell idea though Turquoise.

Last edited by Jay (2012-02-27 11:03:33)

jsnipy wrote:

I have no issues with public utilities. Maybe shitty service, overcharging is just an NY thing? Would be consistent with the northern union mentality.

Point it it should be a utility.

Before moving over the summer, we had been paying ~$350/mo to heat our one bedroom 2nd floor apartment. CONED is a gigantic piece of shit.

jsnipy wrote:

I'm sure, they are a publicly traded company, not a municipal owned utility

They might as well be publicly owned. Every aspect of the way they run is regulated to the point that the city and state might as well be signing the paychecks of the workers. First they grant the monopoly, then they tell the utility how to run 'for the greater good'.

Jay wrote:

Then why don't you start up a non-profit ISP? Public utilities always work well. Keep nominal prices down by raising the price in other places i.e. taxes. It's a great way to get the rich guy to pay for the poor guys bills. Too bad everyone ends up paying more in the end because public utilities have zero incentive to keep costs down.

Swell idea though Turquoise.

Public utilities work fine here -- the public ISPs in Salisbury and Wilson are some of the best in the country.

Maybe it's just one of those things NY sucks at.  It wouldn't be the only thing they suck at.

FEOS wrote:

Public utilities here are horrid. Run by the City of San Antonio.

But telecomms are not in that situation. All private companies, with tons of competition.

We've got jack shit for competition here.  Time Warner owns this place.

You actually have to move to smaller cities for better service.