"Net Neutrality" is a bad solution to a non-problem. The article stipulates that there is very little actual regulatory action, yet most providers are mostly neutral.
The fundamental question is; Who owns the internet? Meaning , who owns the fiber, coax, servers? The answer to this suggests the answer to the question - an owner of a piece of private property should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants with it. Cases where previous government-mediated monopolies hinder the fundamental fairness of this should be investigated and corrected, but the servers, switches, and the "pipes", as Senator Stevens so ineptly (but not inaptly) put it, belong to the owners, not the government, and not to Google.
Hmm... Vend-A-Shill: Will argue against American freedom and for abusive corporations. Please insert coin.
Oh, that explains everything!
Seriously though, it was the government that built the internet infrastructure... they only loaned it to cable companies and telcos on the condition that it be improved with fiberoptic networks. That never happened. And when other people try to build those fiberoptic networks, Comcast and its cronies have the gall to sue for unfair competition (as if there was anything resembling competition in the cable industry).
So yeah, the usual "free-market solves EVERYTHING!" drivel spouted off by most Republicans just doesn't fly in this case. America is a country of freedom, and that freedom belongs to more than just billionaire media monopolists.
If common carrier laws need to be passed to preserve that freedom, so be it. AT+T has plenty of money as it is... it can find other ways to make more money than by imprisoning free expression and turning the internet into a desolate wasteland of bland, processed content.
Way to make two nasty, reflexive, ad hominem attacks on me in one post. Accusing me of carrying water for Big Telco / Big Cable and the Republicrat / Demoblican party really addresses the point (NOT), which is who owns the stuff is the internet made of.
But here you are, opposed to two industries (Big Telco and Big Cable) monopolizing the internet. The monopoly power they have been given comes from government regs (federal regs on telco for over 100 years, state and local regs on cable). Yet your solution, and that of every party in the "Net Neutrality" debate is to issue MORE regulations. How does this make any sense?
The only answer that will work in the long run is complete, utter deregulation and privatization of all telco and all internet. Let ISPs restrict access to non-favored content providers, and new competitors will spring up nearly overnight to bleed the offending ISPs to death. And your irrelevant blather about the government creating the internet aside, the first massive investments in fiber were made by companies such as MCI that were able to break loose of the hammerlock the Feds gave the Bell System, and this, not your precious bureaucracy, was the major development that led to the internet as we know it today.
Notice, I did NOT accuse you of being a shill for, say, Google or Yahoo, in the same way you accused me of shilling for ComCrap or Big Brother Bell.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Vince D @ Mar 29th 2007 2:41PM
"Net Neutrality" is a bad solution to a non-problem. The article stipulates that there is very little actual regulatory action, yet most providers are mostly neutral.
The fundamental question is; Who owns the internet? Meaning , who owns the fiber, coax, servers? The answer to this suggests the answer to the question - an owner of a piece of private property should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants with it. Cases where previous government-mediated monopolies hinder the fundamental fairness of this should be investigated and corrected, but the servers, switches, and the "pipes", as Senator Stevens so ineptly (but not inaptly) put it, belong to the owners, not the government, and not to Google.
ManekiNeko @ Mar 29th 2007 5:51PM
Hey, is that a sticker on your chest?
Hmm... Vend-A-Shill: Will argue against American freedom and for abusive corporations. Please insert coin.
Oh, that explains everything!
Seriously though, it was the government that built the internet infrastructure... they only loaned it to cable companies and telcos on the condition that it be improved with fiberoptic networks. That never happened. And when other people try to build those fiberoptic networks, Comcast and its cronies have the gall to sue for unfair competition (as if there was anything resembling competition in the cable industry).
So yeah, the usual "free-market solves EVERYTHING!" drivel spouted off by most Republicans just doesn't fly in this case. America is a country of freedom, and that freedom belongs to more than just billionaire media monopolists.
If common carrier laws need to be passed to preserve that freedom, so be it. AT+T has plenty of money as it is... it can find other ways to make more money than by imprisoning free expression and turning the internet into a desolate wasteland of bland, processed content.
JR
Vince D @ Mar 30th 2007 10:21AM
JR,
Way to make two nasty, reflexive, ad hominem attacks on me in one post. Accusing me of carrying water for Big Telco / Big Cable and the Republicrat / Demoblican party really addresses the point (NOT), which is who owns the stuff is the internet made of.
But here you are, opposed to two industries (Big Telco and Big Cable) monopolizing the internet. The monopoly power they have been given comes from government regs (federal regs on telco for over 100 years, state and local regs on cable). Yet your solution, and that of every party in the "Net Neutrality" debate is to issue MORE regulations. How does this make any sense?
The only answer that will work in the long run is complete, utter deregulation and privatization of all telco and all internet. Let ISPs restrict access to non-favored content providers, and new competitors will spring up nearly overnight to bleed the offending ISPs to death. And your irrelevant blather about the government creating the internet aside, the first massive investments in fiber were made by companies such as MCI that were able to break loose of the hammerlock the Feds gave the Bell System, and this, not your precious bureaucracy, was the major development that led to the internet as we know it today.
Notice, I did NOT accuse you of being a shill for, say, Google or Yahoo, in the same way you accused me of shilling for ComCrap or Big Brother Bell.
Bucky @ Mar 30th 2007 12:49PM
I agree with that statement 100%
http://www.bloggingwv.com