Sign in or 

| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jessw030 | Question Formation 2: Jessica Watahovich | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 11:07 PM EST by jessw030 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 11:07 PM EST
Watch
If the internet has such a large influence on the economy, has illegal downloading of movies/music had an effect on the current struggling economy? Source: Taking Sides, pg. 53
Would services like Skype/Youtube have come about if there were more restrictions on the internet? Will a "free market" internet truely lead to more advances? Taking Sides, pg. 60 If Congress enacted a network neutrality mandate, what other regulations would come after that? i.e. would there be a slippery slope effect leading to more legislation? Taking Sides, pg. 63 |
|||||
| sharman09 | Question Formation 2: Sarah Harman | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 10:22 PM EST by sharman09 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 10:22 PM EST
Watch
1. Lessig says that access-tiering would be like auctioning off quality to the highest bidder. Isn't this a little like the debate asking whether or not knowledge/discoveries can be "owned" by a private company or the public? Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 51, 52
2. Can a neutral internet stop illegal things? like downloading and viruses. Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 54, 56,62 3. Would the neutral internet help the free market? Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 54, 55, 56, 66 |
|||||
| doconnor88 | Question Formation 2 - Dan O'Connor | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 7:46 PM EST by doconnor88 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 7:46 PM EST
Watch
1. Lawerence Lessig states that Internet service providers have no right to block legal content or give preference to certain content providers. However, if the provided content renders the service unusable, should the Internet service provider still be required to allow access to it? For example, if a particular website provides a program that, while legal, slows down the ISP servers so much that the customer cannot continue browsing, should the ISP still allow it? Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pgs. 53-54, 55
2. Kyle Dixon says the Internet is like an ecosystem, in that it is constantly growing, changing, and is interdependent. If this is the case, would posing limitations on what Internet content is available to end-users not limit the ways in which this digital “ecosystem” survives? Source: Easton, Thomas A. Taking Sides. Pgs. 59, 60-61, 62 3. Kyle Dixon says that having a network neutrality mandate would lead to more regulations. Would any of these potential regulations inhibit consumers from receiving all the information available on the Internet? Source: Easton, Thomas A. Taking Sides. Pgs. 63, 64, 65 |
|||||
| ebayotte | Question Formation 2: Emily B. Ayotte | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 6:33 PM EST by ebayotte | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 6:33 PM EST
Watch
Emily Ayotte
Question Formation 2 Science Writing February 26, 2009 1. By not supporting a neutrality, wouldn’t some people (the less fortunate) be at a disadvantage and debilitated by the fact that they do not have as great amount of access etc. because they cannot afford it? The internet is a strong and active part of our society that almost every citizen, whether they have a PC or not, uses. (Taking Sides, pg.57) 2. In Lessig’s argument he discusses how the lack of competition that a non-neutral internet would cause, would slow down the innovation and expansion of the technology. This would, in theory, provide us with more control over the growth of the internet. Besides the fact that the “big guys” would be making more money, would more control over the internet and its growth be an aspect that some analysts are considering? Is that control helpful in anyway? (Taking Sides, pg.52) 3. Would making an “anticipatory” law or mandate about neutrality really harm the internet and the system? Why not fix a potential problem, before it becomes a real problem? (Taking Sides, pg. 65) |
|||||
| RebekahFreeeman | Question Formation 2 - Rebekah Freeman | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 1:01 PM EST by RebekahFreeeman | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 1:01 PM EST
Watch
1. What factors help create economic competition on the internet? The internet provides a wide variety of opportunity stemming from all the options available to customers. Does the availability of products or advertising space help or hinder economic competitiveness? Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 55-56 2. Does the government have the right to control commerce on the internet? Should organizations like the FCC play a role in the internet, or is that overstepping their boundaries? Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pg. 53 3. What can be done to help keep the internet balanced and neutral? Are there any steps that can be taken to protect freedom of speech but give everyone the same outlets of expression on the internet? Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 59 |
|||||
| k1james | Question Formation 2 - Kristen James | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 12:13 PM EST by k1james | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 12:13 PM EST
Watch
1. If network neutrality is ever completely struck down as possible policy, how would this change competition between network owners? Would consumers and developers be more attracted to networks that attempted to maintain neutrality in their own business plans?
2. In his testimony before Congress, Lessig argued for network neutrality based on economic effects, saying, "My argument is not about the social justice of Internet access" (Taking Sides, pg. 51). When forming an opinion, is it reasonable to ignore the aspects of the debate that revolve around Internet morality or fairness and focus solely on the practical? 3. In his testimony before Congress, Dixon states that, "...there is reason to expect that a network neutrality mandate actually might weaken the competitive vibrancy of the content, applications and device components of the Internet" (Taking Sides, pg. 61) and argues that refusing to allow developers to pay for priority access prevents the development of certain high-quality content (such as streaming HD video). Conversely, Lessig argues that allowing developers to purchase priority skews the market unreasonably towards established companies and makes it much more difficult for developers to start new companies. When it comes to the Internet, is quality or innovation more important? |
|||||
| dcryan | Question Formation 2 - Doug Ryan | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 11:53 AM EST by dcryan | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 11:53 AM EST
Watch
1. If network owners provisioned their bandwidth to companies that pay top dollar, would the internet become more like TV news channels? By that I mean, would networks on the internet become so biased that its "open forum of discussion" schematic as we know it turn into another CNN or Fox News station?
2. One argument for non-neutrality is the idea that 911 calls, or emergency services, should be given priority for internet use, over say, non-essential luxury internet use. Can you think of a reason why this should not be so? Shouldn't fire departments and polic have internet priority via VOIP? 3. Would advancement of technological innovations be stifled if network providers only adheared to their top clients wishes in a "non-neutral" world? How would non-neutral internet aid the economy? How would non-neutral internet be a detriment to the economy? 3. |
|||||
| RMcGinnis | Ryan McGinnis Questions 2 | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 11:19 AM EST by RMcGinnis | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 11:19 AM EST
Watch
1. How has the end-to-end design helped to make the internet neutral? (52)
2. How have the four FCC principles established "internet freedoms"? (53, 54) 3. How does free use of the internet create economic competition? (55) 4. How has broadband internet changed the argument on network neutrality? (61, 62 63) |
|||||
| Anonymous | Question Formation 2 - Matt Langan | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 10:09 AM EST by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 10:09 AM EST
Watch
In Taking Sides, he talks about the internet becoming "network neutral" would slow down the economy. Why would this stance even be brought up nowadays?
In Taking Sides, the solution for people competing to provide new internet service is consumer-tiering. Consumer-tieiring could provide incentives for networks, but is this "tiering" a well constructed strategy or not one at all? Will it cause monopolies to form? Why or why not? |
||||
| smccravey | question | 0 | Feb 26 2009, 8:32 AM EST by smccravey | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 26 2009, 8:32 AM EST
Watch
1) On page 57, Lawrence Lessig states that "if insiders are given technological and legal control over innovation on the internet, innovation will be stifled". Do you believe technological development could effectively be slowed at this point in the history of the internet?
2) Kyle Dixon describes the internet as" constantly changing and growing". Because of this constant innovation, could regulation attempts at neutrality could be obsolete by the time they are written as users or developers will have already found a way to sidestep the regulation? 3)Kyle Dixon believes there should be prerequisites in in order for any congressional mandates to take effect. These prerequisites must be vetted by someone; effectively creating a lengthy process and essentially...another problem. Is the internet truly too large to regulate? 3) |
|||||
| JCoach | Network Neutrality Questions | 0 | Feb 25 2009, 11:02 PM EST by JCoach | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 25 2009, 11:02 PM EST
Watch
If monopolies are not wanted in an industry, why would you try to install access-tiering, which would basically lead to multiple monopolies on the internet?
Not everyone is capable of receiving the same type of signal, whether it's a technological issue, or the area in which they live. Is it even possible for "network neutrality" to exist? It seems like the matter keeps coming back to money. The beginning of the issue, on page 49, says these mandates could slow the economy. With the internet becoming "network neutral", and leading to a potential slower economy, why is something like this up for discussion? Dixon states on page 64 that a significant amount of money will be lost on development of broadband networks if this mandate was passed. Why lock down an innovation if it's having success early on in the process? |
|||||
| Malinows | Post to Forum 2 | 0 | Feb 25 2009, 9:40 PM EST by Malinows | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 25 2009, 9:40 PM EST
Watch
1. If you are working for a company such as Google, does the company have the right to block you from using sites such as Yahoo while at work?
2. If companies could blocout others from searching on the internet using competitors sites, would this ultimately stop the "growth" of the internet? 3. "Taking Sides" clims that there is o single dominent broadband network provide. If companies could regulate or stop employees rom going on competitor's sites, do you think a dominate provider would emerge that offers total freedom to everything? |
|||||
| Razumich | Questions | 0 | Feb 25 2009, 7:37 PM EST by Razumich | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 25 2009, 7:37 PM EST
Watch
1) As Lessig mentions, access-tiering will restrict the opportunity of many to compete in providing new Internet service. This ends up creating a monopoly in the industry of internet service, however, he mentions that there needs to be some form of incentives to build better broadband services. His solution is consumer-tiering, but isn’t this the same thing? Consumer-tiering is different types of access contracts based on differences in speed and volume sold at different prices according to willingness to pay.
Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 51 2) Dixon describes the internet as an ecosystem. He claims that it represents nature because it is changing and growing. If the internet is described in this way, then just as the ecosystem, there needs to be rules and restrictions on certain things, or like in “science” today we might ruin the “ecosystem”. You cannot make the traffic of the internet neutral, just like in the world you cannot control 100% where people are allowed to go, but you can attempt to. Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 59 |
|||||
| lsnyd07 | Question Formation #2 - Lesley Snyder | 0 | Feb 25 2009, 3:14 PM EST by lsnyd07 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 25 2009, 3:14 PM EST
Watch
#1- Lawerence Lessig talks about the diversity of innovaters in the Internet world and the original Internet design "end-to-end" which encouraged innovation. What is the "end-to-end" design? Do you think it's encouraged a wide range of innovation like Lessig says? Why or why not?
Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 51-52 #2 - Lessig also talks about access-tiering and how that can stunt the growth and innovation of the internet; however, to oppose access-tiering is not to oppose all tiering, thus arguing that consumer-tiering could provide more incentives for networks. Do you agree with his opinion? Is "tiering" good or bad? Would consumer-tiering be better? Why or why not? Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 55-56 #3 - Kyle D. Dixon states that "The touchstone for resolving network neutrality or any other regulatory debate is consumer welfare. Specifically, policymakers must balance many (and inevitably, competing) interests to maximize benefits to consumer sin the form of competition, investment, and innovation." Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pg.59 |
|||||