Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 11:53 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Internet & Networking "In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a web site we need the cooperation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice." Recommended reading. I'm no fan of Stallman, but despite a bit too much dramatisation towards the end, this article aptly illustrates in layman's terms why the 'net needs to be free, open, and unregulated.
Permalink for comment 455700
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: unregulated?
by sorpigal on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 19:14 UTC in reply to "unregulated?"
Member since:

Net neutrality *is* about an unregulated internet. A lot of right-wingers think "unregulated" means "The government makes no rules so the corporations can make whatever rules they like, screwing the public if they will" but true non-regulation includes having no regulation at the direction of a ISPs or backbone providers.

Hint: It's not unregulated if Comcast can tell me I can't run an SMTP server and that certain websites require "premium" fees to access, even if the government hasn't told them to do that.

Reply Parent Score: 6