The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

August 17, 2010 -

John P. Mello Jr. from PC World examines the topic of innovation versus regulation of wireless services and technologies, armed with quotes from Peter Suderman, an associate editor with Reason Magazine in Los Angeles. Just a little disclosure on Reason Magazine; the publication is anti-government regulation, or more succinctly, has a strong Libertarian lean. Editors from the magazine are frequent guests on such Fox Business shows as Stossel and Freedom Watch (both sporting strong Libertarian views).

So how would net neutrality rules hurt a device like the Kindle? Well, according to Suderman, Kindle moves a specific kind of proprietary data to its platform wirelessly and rules that govern the prioritization of wireless data might somehow affect it.

"It's a business model that relies, in fact, on discrimination," he said this morning on On Point, a talk show on National Public Radio station WBUR in Boston. "You can only get certain things through your Kindle.

"In theory," he continued, "a very, very strict version of Net Neutrality, taken to its extreme, could, in fact, outlaw, or at least make it very difficult, to operate a business service like the Kindle."

Federal Communications Commission Julius Genachowski has vowed to make regulatory decisions on a case-by-case basis so something like this wouldn't happen - assuming you beleive him.

"They want to do that in order that they don't make really boneheaded moves like accidently outlawing the Kindle," Suderman added.

But Suderman doesn't have confidence that the government, or rather bureaucrats in Washington are capable of doing anything right. While there's certainly a case to be made against government bureaucracy, Suderman's assertions are bold.

"What that does is put the [FCC] in the middle of the development of new business models, the development of great new technologies like the Kindle that rely on things that are different," Suderman asserted.

"Net neutrality has served the Internet very well as a principle," he added, "but I'm less confident, I'm less sure, that it's something that needs to be regulated by federal authorities."

Source: PC World


Comments

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

Does this guy have the slightest clue what net neutrality actually is?  Net neutrality means the ISPs treat all traffic as equal.  It doesn't mean every device must support all kinds of traffic.  That would be patently absurd.

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

His argument does not work. How could net neutrality affect the Kindle? All he does is outline vague fears about bonehead bureaucrats.

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

errrrr Lets keep Net neutrality out of the IP/CP cess pool please....


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

I do not recall Net Neutrality discrimination against any kind of data being sent through the internet. Looks like someone been getting there info from the isp company to me.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

I do not recall any element of net neutrality that would stop the creation of closed client software connecting to a closed server.

The extreme he describes is the type of extreme that says if you let people drive, running people over might become mandatory.

Re: The Case Against Wireless Net Neutrality and Kindle

"In theory," he continued, "a very, very strict version of Net Neutrality, taken to its extreme, could, in fact, outlaw, or at least make it very difficult, to operate a business service like the Kindle."

Net Neutrality is focusing on IP companies and them not restricting the free flow of information, or treating one kind of information higher than another.  The kindle doesn't fall into that category.  Sure, you can only get certain things through your kindle, simply because the kindle is meant only to process and read those certain things.  People buy the Kindle knowing that they're getting it to read ebooks and pdfs.

The Kindle is a machine that uses the internet.  That's not the focus of Net Neutrality.  The focus is on the IP companies that regulate the internet for those machines to use.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
quiknkoldhavent seen any apologies from the "Other Side" except from Boogie, and he made a video, and I saw him give his apology and I accepted it.10/22/2014 - 8:03am
Michael ChandraWhich usually is "the guy is an ass and I don't really believe it, but fine, benefit for the doubt THIS time and no second chances."10/22/2014 - 7:58am
Michael ChandraI'll accept his apology for something that, no matter whether a joke or serious is way out of line, just as much as I accept apologies from others.10/22/2014 - 7:57am
Michael ChandraRefusing to accept an apology that is done through the same medium and does not sound horribly half-assed is just plain childish.10/22/2014 - 7:56am
Michael ChandraPeople on 'both' sides of the debate have screwed up and apologized without such acts. Where's your criticism on the other side?10/22/2014 - 7:56am
E. Zachary KnightReason posted the second part of their GamerGate story: http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/22/gamergate-part-2-videogames-meet-feminis/10/22/2014 - 7:51am
quiknkoldagain, I dont accept any apology when I cant see their face when they give it to me. He needs to do a video, or do something positive like charity or whatever.10/22/2014 - 7:15am
Michael ChandraBut that's the case with every apology, isn't it?10/22/2014 - 5:57am
Michael ChandraDon't get me wrong. The guy from Gawker screwed up, and he acknowledged that and apologized. Whether people believe him is a second thing.10/22/2014 - 5:57am
Michael ChandraTranslation: "We screwed up but are denying it by saying we don't support groups that bully despite us doing exactly what such a group wanted us to do."10/22/2014 - 5:51am
InfophileAdobe: "Adobe sent Ars an e-mail that said, "Please read our Twitter response to this matter.""... You do realize Twitter isn't the best platform for an official response, right?10/22/2014 - 4:23am
Technogeekprh99: Gamergate and Adobe deserve each other.10/22/2014 - 2:55am
Andrew EisenAdam McKay directed cartoon about income inequality. https://screen.yahoo.com/we-the-economy/inequality-1-unbelievable-sweet-alpacas-175411663.html10/21/2014 - 8:54pm
prh99Bit.ly Maintainance here is the original http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/10/after-gamergate-tweet-adobe-distances-itself-from-gawker-bullying/10/21/2014 - 8:39pm
prh99Adobe calls out Gawker for GG bullying and backpedals...sort of. http://bit.ly/1pyM4Yg10/21/2014 - 8:35pm
Neo_DrKefkaThanks James. Means a lot.10/21/2014 - 7:24pm
prh99Nothing that hasn't been said.10/21/2014 - 6:52pm
Andrew EisenHaven't read it yet. I'm sharing this because I love the header image. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html10/21/2014 - 3:39pm
james_fudgeYou are one of us, you're a GPer, not a GGer :)10/21/2014 - 2:27pm
james_fudgeNeo_DrKefka: half of them don't know who that is, so no worries :)10/21/2014 - 2:27pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician