Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Aug 2010 20:28 UTC
Internet & Networking Lots of talk on net neutrality this week, mostly due to the joint policy proposal from Google and Verzion. While many Americans are calling for government-imposed net neutrality rules, The New York Times' Eric Pfanner proposes a different solution - one that has been working wonders in Europe. And hey, what a coincidence - I'm European!
Thread beginning with comment 437036
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by jjmckay
by jjmckay on Mon 16th Aug 2010 13:36 UTC
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

I love where that the idea of competition is finally being discussed as an alternative to NN. I think it's the only real solution. There's a phrase, "You Can Lead a Camel to Water, But You Can't Make Him Drink." - this is what I think Net Neutrality would end up being, because the ISP's will find ways to circumvent NN regulations in various ways (like for DMCA reasons, etc).

Competition is the best solution, and I'm sure it is what the duopoly really fears. The real problem here is that local governments granted duopolies all across the country and severely limited consumer choice. The idea that we need more government (N.N.) to solve a problem that government created in the first place, to me, is backwards thinking.

I believe there's an element of corporate propaganda supporting Net Neutrality. The Open Internet Coalition is one example. These are business who, instead of demanding competition, want government a partnership in the form of NN to help their business model.

There's one more scary aspect to Net Neutrality that really bothers me. It has to do with what happened recently with WikiLeaks. The Pentagon and the Obama administration openly threatened them to not release more information about the failed war in Afghanistan. This same federal government is now supposed to be trustworthy to protect our Internet traffic while at the same time suppressing open criticism and discussion about what's really going on, including war crimes. I just don't trust the federal government enough to give them powers over Internet traffic in some sort of political 'fairness' doctrine which will likely end up being a political backscratching, corporate backed law that does little to help free and open communication.

Edited 2010-08-16 13:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jjmckay
by Almafeta on Tue 17th Aug 2010 02:56 in reply to "Comment by jjmckay"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

There's one more scary aspect to Net Neutrality that really bothers me. It has to do with what happened recently with WikiLeaks. The Pentagon and the Obama administration openly threatened them to not release more information about the failed war in Afghanistan.


The key word here: 'threatened'. All they can do is say things or ask for things; unlike in countries like the EU or Australia, where if you are undesired you make the secret blacklist and all attempts to access those sites are monitored, the US has no blacklist nor authority to create such a blacklist.

Reply Parent Score: 3