August 02, 2006

• Is this video supposed to make me for or against net neutrality?
• Tracicle, the web isn't letting me comment on your blog, even thought it recognized my password in the past, but doesn't now.
• Me too. I signed up for the blog, got my name/pass, posted a comment, it never showed up...
• Let me check, there may be some unapproved comments in the queue.
• Flagpole, you commented yesterday. Path, I'm emailing you a new password to try.
• Totally tubular!
• Most. Erotic. Video. Ever.
• Whoa!
• Peter Pan was much more articulate than I expected.
• I was against Net Neutrality until I watched this video. Now I have seen the light. But if I really am the internet, then I feel I have a lot to apologize for.
• Their arguments are not the most persuasive. Now, I may have this all wrong, but I thought that ending net neutrality would not necessarily mean a charge to the viewer more to see Peter Pan's website, or Gem Sweater - but that backbone providers will allow site owners who pay a premium (like MSN, CNN, FoxNews, Apple, Sony) to get bandwidth preference over all the site/server owners who don't pay that premium (like Peter Pan, Gem Sweater, or maybe your nearby hospital or university, school, library. etc). Site and server owners already pay for bandwidth, but without net neutrality, the internet service providers can charge the content providers now even more if they want to be sure that their content can get to their viewers/email clients/etc. Also, that internet service providers could cut off some services they feel compete with their own content provision (which I understand has already happened). But the most convincing argument these internet celebrities should have made was that the loss of Net Neutrality means that no one else will be able to do what they have done - make something for someone else to enjoy which hasn't brought them profit. The greatest danger of the loss of Net Neutrality is that the beautiful opennes of the web will be lost - the ability of people to have access to very low cost gallery/printing/film showing/music sharing space, even if they are just an amateur or doing it for fun. Explain to people that they won't be able to post videos for their grandparents to see, to put mp3s from their amateur band, share their artwork at high resolution. this is the loss. Oh, yeah, and the transfer of research data between universities will take second place to online reruns of "Everyone [but anyone i know] loves Raymond". That's really helping the progress of the human race.
• Their arguments are not the most persuasive.... But the most convincing argument these internet celebrities should have made was that the loss of Net Neutrality means that no one else will be able to do what they have done Um, I believe that was their main argument. The Tron Guy and the Sweater Girl both made points about Net Neutrality is responsible for allowing them to become internet sensations, and on top of making that point, Peter Pan even made it a point to encourage people to put something creative out there. There did seem to be some misunderstanding or confusion from Sweater Girl about who would be picking up the bill, but the whole argument of the site, even down to it's url, is the same argument you bring up. That's their whole point.
• Holy shit that was friggin' awesome. And yet it could have been so much worse. Now, to get the virals meta-parodied . .
• I think they didn't really hit those core points that you are, rightly, picking out as the core of their argument, Mr K. They touched, tangentially, on their core points, but they didn't clearly express them or put them up front. The entire site is, implicitly, pointing toward the argument that the net is a wonderful, screwed up, off-beat, human place, and that taking away net neutrality is about turning it into something bland and pre-packaged. 'Privilaged access', goes the argument, inhearently means reduced access for everybody else and could even mean no access or pay-for access which would cut off the lunatic fringe that makes the internet so worthwhile. So they should have just said that. 'Mass entertainment has given us all access to high and popular culture, but only at the price of destroying folk culture. The Internet is restoring folk culture in all it's terrible, wacky, human, beauty. Don't let telcos destroy that for profit'. Not 'I like me. They want you to pay to see me. Which is bad!'
• Not only that (above), but companies like Vonage and YouTube will likely fall on the wayside, since they rely on the lack of a speed limit on thar intarwebs. And I certainly do not want to wait forever for my Google Earth to load the data I need.
• Why, what are you doing with Google Earth?! Stop that!
• Ouch! Why you gotta pinch me? Google Earth is great for checking out local geology of a site. Plus, if I press my finger on the screen, I can squash entire cities!
• I am so telling.
• I think Google Earth would be a lot better if all the views were live.
• Ugh. Nasty Camel Toe alert.
• Real-time satellite images would so rock. Holy crap, man. But, then, some fucktard from the Department of Fatherland Security would whine that Osama can find and eat our children with the program, and that would squash it.