Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Ltd.

Archive for the ‘Site News’ Category

• I'm at Garcia's Mexican Restaurant (3820 FM 3009 # 136, Schertz). http://4sq.com/chvUte #
• I'm at Panda Express (11220 Huebner Road, San Antonio). http://4sq.com/cMnWkW #
• Panda Express fortune: "Your most memorable dream will come." Translation: Prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse. #
• Good thing about packing: finding things you thought you'd lost or forgotten you had. #
• From the Soup (actually some soap opera): "No more wondering what's for breakfast… It's more like, 'What's for life?'" #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• The Doctor playing football (soccer) = superbly brilliant. I love episodes where the Doctor has to be "normal" and totally fails at it. #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• @ryan_connolly agree in reply to ryan_connolly #
• Best line from the Soup (from the show True Beauty) – "I'll accept bottom place, but I won't accept losing!" #
• I just ousted @jtyost2 as the mayor of The Park Apartments on @foursquare! http://4sq.com/694R3X #
• Pictures from a Russian edition of The Hobbit: http://ow.ly/1XEAz (from @geeknights) #
• I just found out that L.S. Underground's _The Grape Prophet_ is available for download at http://lsunderground.bandcamp.com for $9. #
• A CD copy of _The Grape Prophet_ on eBay goes for $50-100 last time I checked, by the way. #
• What do you do when a monument like Stonehenge misbehaves? Blow it up! #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• RT @ryan_connolly: This really sucks! Guillermo Del Toro is no longer directing 'The Hobbit'! – http://bit.ly/bqTcmT #
• RT @RawRock: what the crazy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5RYCWgY7-o #
• I'm finding the tendency of documentaries to use the same footage over and over (especially stock footage with little relevance) annoying. #
• To all the veterans who read this: Thank you for your service; I'm glad this day is not specifically for you. #
• Those who blame others for their problems and look to others for solutions are easily manipulated. #
• @StarShipSofa We had a grapevine when we lived outside Memphis, TN, but we never had to do anything with it but make grape jelly. in reply to StarShipSofa #
• Bill Nighy + Doctor Who = Brilliant! #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• RT @ryan_connolly: Someone who deserves to be remembered – http://bit.ly/amJYkz #
• It's Doctor Who time!! #

Powered by Twitter Tools

I have written about net neutrality and the conservative misrepresentation of it before in reference to Dana Loesch’s comments about it on her radio show. The issue has come up again, this time on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Much of the time I agree with Limbaugh, and even when I don’t I understand his point. But here we have an example where I agree in principal with Rush, but he makes such a big mistake that it got me thinking about why conservatives like Loesch and Limbaugh have jumped on net neutrality the way they have. Why can they get the political ideas right, but the particulars wrong?

This particular issue is one that I’ve been following for the past five or so years. It’s one that has been a major topic of discussion in technology circles, and I think this is where the main problem lies. Most people are not tech savvy. Many may be able to use a computer competently, and they may use it every day. But unless they immerse themselves in the tech world, they miss a lot. For this reason, most people (Loesch and Limbaugh included) have only recently become aware of the net neutrality issue that tech geeks like myself have been studying and debating for years. Net neutrality is the sort of issue that goes on for years before the non-tech media become aware of it, and when they do they often get it wrong.

Getting a tech issue like this wrong is not just a problem of conservatism; liberals are just as bad. But there is another part of this that explains why conservatives are getting this particular issue wrong, and it has to do with the particular circumstances under which this issue came to the attention of the media: the FCC’s struggles with Comcast. Because the issue had to do with a government agency and new regulations on a company, conservatives jumped at once to denounce the move. A key tenant of conservatism is, of course, limits on government, and here was a government agency attempting to put more control on the private sector.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine (which was ended in the 1980s during the Reagan administration) attempted in theory to provide balance to political discourse in a time when many media markets were dominated by one or two players. As technology has helped to democratize political discourse, such a doctrine has become obviously unnecessary (if it ever was necessary). But there are people on the Left who have been calling for its reinstitution, and thus the issue of government regulation of political speech has once again come to the fore. Combine this with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, and it is clear why the FCC’s attempt at regulating Comcast (a net neutrality issue) has become conflated with attempts by the Left to hamper political discourse.

The issue has been further confused by recent events. On one of Rush’s shows last week, he brought this up in discussing Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan. One of Ms. Kagan’s chief associates, Cass Sunstein, had made several comments suggesting that the government should require political websites to include links or popups to sites with opposing viewpoints. Ms. Kagan herself has in the past made very similar comments about government regulation of political speech. What caused this to be further conflated with net neutrality was Mr. Sunstein’s example, using websites. As many other people, Rush heard “websites” and instantly connected this to net neutrality, since both have to do with the Internet. I think the only way to clear the issue, then, is to explain where net neutrality came from.

The debate over net neutrality began primarily with some comments made by Ed Whitacre, then CEO of AT&T, about Google. Basically, Whitacre suggested that Google and other content providers were not paying their fair share for the bandwidth they use. This idea is, of course, ridiculous: Google pays for Internet access (or at least has peering relationships with ISPs to exchange bandwidth), the consumer pays for their bandwidth, and AT&T’s (as well as other ISPs) job is to get out of the way and deliver the content. These comments, as well as the expansion of ISPs such as Comcast into delivering their own content to customers, led to the debate over whether a company could prioritize its own traffic at the expense of others, even though customers are paying for access.

Let’s look at an example: Comcast has a streaming service of their own, but I primarily use Netflix. Should Comcast give preference to one their own streaming service over Netflix, even though I am paying for access to Netflix?

That’s what net neutrality is about. It is not about the government limiting speech, or the FCC reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. Net neutrality simply states that, except for load balancing necessary to maintaining their networks, ISPs should basically be “dumb pipes,” unconcerned with the nature of the bits they transmit to and from end users. The issue is non-political except in how it relates to government regulation. I and many others believe that government regulation would just make the problem worse, especially considering that government regulation largely got us in the problem in the first place. We want a market solution to the problem: in particular, a solution that would provide more competition. There are some who think that the FCC, because of the lack of local competition among ISPs, will have to regulate net neutrality. But that is as political as the issue gets

• RT @edgarwright: An old lady just stopped me in the street to ask something. The question? "Could you estimate how wide this road is?" #
• I know I'm behind on this, but the Google logo is a playable game of Pac Man! #
• BBC America + Star Trek: TNG = what the heck?! #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• So, the power's out at school; it couldn't have waited until after lunch started? #
• Power's back on; it was off for about 40 mins. I'm not looking forward to squirrely kids this afternoon. #
• "Just because you don't call it 'god' doesn't mean belief's not involved." from @livingsac #
• RT @FakeAPStylebook daylight saving time – not "savings," thanks to those tax-and-spend democrats, are we right? #
• Finally! I got a call to set up an interview with Marshall High School in Northside ISD. #
• Job interview set up for Monday! While it is just an interview, it helps to know someone's looking at all those apps I've filled out. #
• At the United Spirit Arena, waiting for Jen's graduation ceremony to start. http://twitpic.com/1nt7se #
• @alexlindsay With a goatee, you remind me of Robert Downey, Jr. In Iron Man with shorter hair. in reply to alexlindsay #
• Iron Man, Iron Man, Does whatever an iron can #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• I uploaded a YouTube video — Metal in the Courtyard 2010 http://youtu.be/QOJFocmQbOo?a #
• RT @Heritage U.S. citizens apparently don't have the right to wear the flag in public in CA. What country is this? http://bit.ly/bQwzlc #
• RT @amandapalmer slut (the title of the picture, not a reference to the original poster ) twitpic.com/1lj3v8 #
• RT @Heritage More lawyers, lobbyists and government jobs. It's a recovery only Washington could love. #tcot #tlot http://bit.ly/9BqRYs #
• RT @Apreche via del.icio.us: Bag End Dollhouse bit.ly/9ZQoXM #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• I have survived TAKS for another year. #
• Getting ready to see As I Lay Dying and Demon Hunter at the Cactus Courtyard! \m/ #
• Finally in after waiting 1 1/4 hrs. Was taking them a long time to check I'd. #
• Demon Hunter show was typically awesome; waiting for As I Lay Dying. #
• As I Lay Dying are great showmen; a wonderful concert all around, even though we missed the first band waiting in line. #
• Jen and I with Demon Hunter!!! – http://twitpic.com/1k7da9 #

Powered by Twitter Tools