matt's weblog . . .

  matt's weblog . . .: long time, no post . . .

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

long time, no post . . .

Well, admittedly, it's been an inexcusably long time since I last posted. There's a lot going on that I'd love to tell you about, but time is an increasingly precious commodity these days. At any rate, at some point, I'll post again to update you on the Scotty/PETA "spat" and to fill you in on the details of the Final Four (both things I promised to do in earlier posts, and both things I have neglected to do as of yet), but for now, I wanted to provide a link to my somewhat limited readership to a CNet article discussing the Net Neutrality issue I tried to explain a couple of months ago. The article itself is interesting, but the real "action" is in Scott Cleland's responsive post and the comments thereto (particularly the back and forth between the article's author, Molly Wood, and Scott Cleland). Anyway, here's the link. I'd recommend reading the primer on the issue I posted here before jumping into the article as it will give you a good deal of background on what, exactly, it is that is being discussed. Again, as I've said before, this is a critically important issue to the future of information technologies and the internet in particular. Although Net Neutrality legislation is (0r, would be, rather) pre-emptive regulation (at this point), rather than reactionary, it is, in many, many ways the Trust Busting of the Information Age; and I, for one, despite my conservative capitalist tendencies, think it is an absolute necessity if we want to avoid the clear ills of a tiered internet. I do not have the fear expressed by Mr. Cleland that this regulation will stagnate competition and curtail the advancement of broadband technologies; in fact, I think that when this tiered internet scheme of broadband providers is buried by effective net neutrality regulation, increased technological advancement will be a necessary by-product compelled by competition (e.g. if broadband providers are prohibited from competing on the basis of their respective pricing models/tiers, they will only be able to win customers from competitors by becoming more efficient and providing a better product for the same price -- hence, market-driven advancement in broadband technologies), but get informed and make your own decision on the issue. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

As an aside, I have a golf outing coming up tomorrow. Our team is comprised of Eric Lanning, Matt Seyffert, and Kelly Clum-Matthysse. Wish us luck!

Will post again, soon...hopefully!


Anonymous Not Him Again said...

Thank goodness. I thought maybe your lack of postings were because Comcast had choked your pipeline to the internet. I'm sure there's a "VanDyk chokes his own pipe" joke in there somewhere, but I'm too sophisticated . . . and lazy to make it.

Suffice to say it's good to hear from you. Even if I do have to surf the internet to find out what's going on in your life like the stalker I am.

Best wishes in your golf outing.

7/19/2006 10:32 AM|Comment Permalink|  
Anonymous i'm neutral on hair nets said...

In case you ever wondered, I didn't, because I knew it all along, whether you were more elequent than some of the nation's foremost authorities on net neutrality, see this site.

That guy should have just read your posting. And I realize that the fact I called him "that guy" reveals a) I am not really qualified to vote since I don't know the names of some of the most powerful (insert cringe here) people in our country; and b) I have the short term memory of a two year old who was just told to sit down and be quiet, because I just watched the clip and I can't remember for the life of me the guy's name.

L-8-R from the L-O-S-R

8/04/2006 4:05 PM|Comment Permalink|  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home