Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Aug 2010 20:55 UTC
Internet & Networking Well, this is interesting. As some rumours already suggested, Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for a legislative framework regarding net neutrality. This being Google and all, some of you may expect this to be all flower-farting unicorns darting across rainbows, but sadly, that's not the case. This proposal? Well, it's not good.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 49 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 436026
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Frankly, anyone who is against net neutrality simply doesn't understand the internet, and should not be allowed to make decisions affecting it.

The major complaint that I see is: "OMG! The government is taking control of the internet!" What these people fail to realize is that the government is not going to "control" the internet, just force it to be fair. And the alternative is allowing roughly ten large corporations actually control the the internet.

Here is the question: do you want to create a system where only the big players can compete, or do you want a system that is fair for all?

Reply Score: 7

Tuishimi Member since:

I don't know. I suppose this could fall under the gov't jurisdiction. I'm a libertarian and generally oppose federal government involvement in anything, but I do accept that some interstate regulation of trade and infrastructure does have to occur - or we'd be living in the mid to late 1800's all over again - slave wages, 2 classes, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

telns Member since:

I'm tempted to say pretty much the same way about techies without a grasp on

Grab some Tullock to read, or just think about how pretty much every major policy issue in all recorded history gets written to favor the best connected.

Giving the government control* is the worst possible solution. It isn't that it is perfect when the government isn't in control--it is just better. The false choice here is between an imperfect market and a perfect law. Well, if such a beast existed, the perfect law would be better. But it doesn't, and it won't. Even if it were "perfect" now, the landscape changes much, much faster than the law will (or can) change, so it would need to be kept in a constant state of "perfection" through constant changes. Each change will be done with only the best motives and the comprehensive understanding of both technology and business that politicians are selected for. (The Internet is not a truck! It is a series of tubes!)

If you are really, really lucky the first draft of the law will be "pure" (this particular deal shows how likely that is to happen). Within 5y it will exist with no other purpose than to protect the entrenched firms with the best lobbyists from any competition. How else would they be able to have the cash on hand to hire all those ex-politicians for part-time, $500k/year "consulting" jobs after they retire?

* I use "control" advisedly. Anytime one party can say, "Do it my way or go to prison," I acknowledge that person as the one in control.

Edited 2010-08-10 20:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1