Am Montag, 2. Juni 2014, 01:13:21 schrieb mohammed serrhini:
> the internet access must be free, as the oxygen breathing, the proposition
> that Internet could be provided as a public service and funded through
> taxes is not very correct because most part of the world population
> suffers from taxes or already are overtaxed, all of us know about the
> quality of public services,
yes,
The comparation of oxygen and internet is often used in the "political scenes"
- far away from the reality of the internet and how it is working and
organized until today - but just wrong for different reasons.
It is one of the dangerous, famous ideas today that a public service internet
(alias internet from government) would offer more "fairness" at all - or at
least more "freedom", "security", "quality" etc.pp..
"Public Services" are not "free" nor "costless" - they just are services
offered by a government, which has to be paid too - i.e. by taxes (as you
mention byself...). The only difference is, that a government can press
peoples to pay a services they don't want to use/buy - i.e. to let them pay
for others who won't pay/work for that service.
Oxygen is a naturally available and "generated" ressource - at least until
today - but even this is not correct anymore as there are countries who are
let working / paying for oxygen ressource regeneration (i.e. over CO2
certificates, laws about planting for oxygen consumption).
> nowadays most public services are privatized .
> in the end internet services will be reprivatized again.
Yes, but they are oligopolized to monopolized then - at least highly
privileged, what distortes free markets what is by fact destruction of freedom
of each human. But who the hell today still want's "freedom" or such a
thing...
Why should i pay for a product i won't use (because it doesnt fit my personal
needs)? Why should my government better know then me what kind of IP accesses
i want to buy and which not? Why should other providers with more special
product palettes offer their products in my region if users have to pay double
for it? I remember perfectly the times here in germany where the "Telekom"
("Deutsche Post") was THE (monopolized) internet service - no one today would
pay for such kind of a service if he still has the freedom to go otherwhere.
But even today (with a "demonopolized" Telekom) they occupy many regions.
And why should i trust my government not to use their influence onto or
ownership of that service to spy me out like i.e. the StaSi does it with us?
The internet - by structure and history - is a network of "autonomous" private
rooms where private "room owners" are giving their users the ability to
connect to other users in other private rooms in a (usually bilateral)
contractual relationship. Each room owner can decide if and how far this
interconnectivity goes while users can decide which of the private rooms they
are using (or not using). Anyone who has the audience and the basic
infrastructure could request, allocate and use IP address space and
participate on that "inter network".
There was no government required to bring up the (real) internet to it's
importance for the globe - the independence from Governments (contrary to i.e.
former ITU's network) was one of the main points for the success of that
network over other networks (even ITU ones). There is no tax, no public
internet service and no governmental internet security agency required to run
a proper internet into the future. All these governmental manipulations will
destroy network neutrality and defect the users freedom as they does it with
former networks.
There was nowhere more corruption, monopoly and "nfairness" then in the old
global telephone networks which by fact governed mainly by governments.
> I think there
> should be a tax on each internet financial transaction not on the client
> side but on the side of companies, we all days heard about internet money
> and the expononcial number of bilion. peering is greet solution for
> reducing cost of internet.
Ah,
another one "who heard" something about "alotofmoney" which is not in his
hands att...
Taxing based on the amount of transactions * transaction volume (* some kind
of factor) is just one of the newest ideas of the new ideological political to
bring more "fairness" and "humanity" to the "world". By fact this is nonsense.
Such a transaction tax will privilege the largest financial companies over
each smaller one by many reasons and not at least - EACH of that taxes have to
be PAID from someone at the "end" - usually the "client" as a consumer. The
only comfortable for politicans is: the majority of their target audience of
voters did not are and will be aware of that.
This "robin hood syndrome" ("taking from the rich to give to the poor" - a
widely misunderstanding of the Robin Hood story where he taked it from the (by
governmentals) "priviledged" to give it to the "underprivileged", what is a
completely different thing) is very typical at the time where the last victims
of the great marxism and socialism experiments are dying away.
This leads - step by step - to a government controlled internet to bring
"freedom", "neutrality", "security" and - not at least - more "fariness to
all".
Georges Orwell's "animal farm" sends greetings...
cheers,
Niels.
--
---
Niels Dettenbach
Syndicat IT & Internet
http://www.syndicat.com
PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc
---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.