[Lancaster] Twitter

[Mike Dent]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lancaster-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk [mailto:lancaster-
> bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Robinson
> Sent: 20 February 2009 17:09
> To: mp
> Cc: Lancaster Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [Lancaster] Twitter
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:39:36PM +0000, mp wrote:
> > Richard Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:13:30PM +0000, mp wrote:
> > >> Richard Robinson wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:30:16PM +0000, mp wrote:
> > >>>> Mike Dent wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While you can't really stop using their services, you can demand
> that they
> > >>>> keep them free.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> yes it would be nice if the internet were run on free open
> source
> > >>>>> software routers which were powered by wind/hydro/solar power
> but I
> > >>>>> don't think it will happen for many years to come.
> > >>>> Not unless you stand up for the idea. Who do you think will drop
> it in
> > >>>> your lap? God? Corporations?
> > >>> This looks like the Free Speech != Free Beer thing ?
> > >> In which way?
> > >
> > > In that the services run on a system are a different issue from the
> way in
> > > which that system is powered.
> > >
> > > The above appears to conflate free ("as in speech") software and
> free (as in
> > > "not paid for") energy.
> >
> > I see, but you can also say that renewable energy is an issue of
> > environmental freedom, as in free speech. I am not sure that the
> > difference necessarily translates into that beer/speech distinction.
> >
> > Anyway, the power issue is not the original problem, but it is
> certainly
> > relevant for future policy making, given the extreme energy use we're
> > talking about. How the Internet is powered is also a public matter
> and a
> > question of environmental justice and freedom. After all it is the
> > fastest growing industry in terms of carbon emissions - since 2007 it
> is
> > heavier on the environment to sustain cyberspace than the aviation
> > industry.
> >
> > With regard to the Internet and enclosure: The way that it is seen -
> the
> > traffic prioritisation threat, that is - in the debate currently is
> by
> > analogy to road infrastructure and what is commonly called common
> > carriage, which corresponds to privately built, maintained and owned
> > roads, but which have been regulated/conditioned, through government
> > regulation, according to the common carriage principle. Hence, those
> > roads are de facto public infrastructures, although privately
> managed.
> > No one can deny you access to "any" road if you have an MOTed vehicle
> > and a license.

Oh and don't forget your tax to drive on that road ;)


> >
> > What is happening with regard to the Internet, to remain in the
> analogy,
> > means that for instance if you want to get on the T6 by Birmingham (a
> > toll/pay per trip road), and you turn up in your little, personal,
> > non-corporate car, you are then told to park at the side of the road
> for
> > half an hour, because there is a Disney convoy coming past that
> requires
> > all the road for a while.
> >
> > No one would accept such a condition, I suspect, in the context of
> > roads. When it comes to the Internet, however, it seems, some people
> > just say "it's certainly not our right" to demand common carriage. We
> > should just enjoy the road while we can.
> >
> > Perhaps better than thinking free speech is thinking freedom of
> movement
> > and communication.
>
> I see what you mean, and agree. I do think it's an important
> distinction to
> make, between freedom in the digital and analogue domains, but yours is
> a
> better way of putting it.
>
> I like your usage of 'enclosures'. I've been thinking for a while now
> that
> that's the issue, to build a public commons that can be protected
> against
> future enclosure acts.
>


Sorry I had to come back in on this.

The Internet was developed by universities and military to provide a means of communication between their sites, I am sure you all know that. Since when did that infrastructure become something that should be free
and we should have a right to use? Or, have I got the whole thing wrong and you guys do not expect it to be your right to use those networks for free?

When did it get the fluffy name Cyberspace or cloud or such things, does that make it easier to claim our rights on it?
It is a network of wires and routers/switches that people own. Do we not have to pay for the use of that equipment or pay for the power to run it all, the manpower to install it?

Perhaps in future we will have a internet tax licence to pay, every time your packets need access to another country you will have to pay tax on for that country before they proceed, kind of funny but I guess it could happen :)

Mike