Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense | Big Think
August 13, 2014
24,980
316
282
2.39%
Search the Record
IndexedEvery word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
Big Think Episodes Around August 13, 2014
See what was published immediately before and after this episode.
6:50Now PlayingNicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense | Big Think
YouTube Description
as posted by the channelNicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense
Watch the newest video from Big Think
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte discusses what it means for the atomic world to turn digital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS NEGROPONTE:
Nicholas Negroponte is the co-founder (with Jerome B. Wiesner) of the MIT Media Lab (1985), which he directed for its first 20 years. A graduate of MIT, Negroponte was a pioneer in the field of computer-aided design and has been a member of the MIT faculty since 1966. He gave the first TED talk in 1984, as well as 13 since. He is author of the 1995 best seller, Being Digital, which has been translated into more than 40 languages. In 2005 he founded the non-profit One Laptop per Child, which deployed $1 billion of laptops for primary education in the developing world. In the private sector, Negroponte served on the board of directors of Motorola (for 15 years) and was general partner in a venture capital firm specializing in digital technologies for information and entertainment. He has personally provided start-up funds for more than 40 companies, including Zagats and Wired magazine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Nicholas Negroponte: In the early 1990s it was clear that there was a new DNA for things that we thought were real like print or movies and we didn’t understand until roughly 1990 that actually the fundamental representation was digital and then you’d map that into a movie or a book or writing, you know, signs in the sky with smoke signals or carving something into metal or whatever. But the fundamental element was digital and because it was digital the medium was not the message. You can actually take any message and map it into media of one sort or another because the message was digital. And then you started to realize that a lot of things that were previously physical were, in fact, potentially virtual and they lived in cyberspace and they lived in ways that are today taken for granted to be digital. So the world of bits and atoms emerged where just how much of our lives was made of bits. And most people don’t realize that the word bit didn’t even exist in 1949. Nobody knew – it hadn’t been invented as a word.
And so in the space of sixty plus years it’s gone to being sort of kind of the basic element. And we never thought of bits and atoms as related that you could convert something from one to the other and there was a transformation. And now with some of the modern maker movement things where you do manufacturing at home and you transmit a part as bits and then it gets created, it’s just again part of that same chain that has to do with the mixture of bits and atoms and the transition from a world dominated by atoms to a world dominated by bits. And country by country it happens at different speeds but it’s interesting to note that even the concept of a country is an atom’s concept. It had an edge. You could be inside it or outside it. You stepped over a line and you were in another country. Back – whether it was a river, whether it was a mountain, whether it was an arbitrary line running through the desert – it came from the world of atoms. And so in some sense to argue that this country is more digital than that country is correct. Korea, South Korea at least is far ahead of many other countries. The United States is kind of in the middle. And there’s some countries that for a variety of historical and regulatory reasons are behind. It’s all temporary. The whole world will be sort of on a somewhat equal basis within some short period of time.
The term net neutrality has a little bit of a pejorative ring. How would you want something not to be neutral. In other words, neutrality seems to be a feature of good. And so yeah, you kind of want this to be net neutral. But the truth is all bits are not created equal. And people don’t appreciate that a book, a normal novel, is about a megabyte. And yet a second of video is more than a megabyte. So when you look at video for a couple of hours it’s the equivalent of hundreds of books. And then if you have a pacemaker that transmits – this is an imaginary pacemaker now that communicates and monitors your health by sending data up to the Cloud. Then a few bits of your heart data are, you know, a small fraction of a book. So you have bits that represent your heart, bits that represent books and bits that represent video.
And so to argue that they’re all equal is crazy.
Read the full transcript at
Guests & Subjects Covered
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.









