More "net neutrality"

[Xiahou]

***I know there was a thread on this awhile back- but I cant find it. If a mod can find it, feel free to merge.

I came across this article yesterday and thought it did a fair job of showing the other side of the coin in the 'net neutrality' debate.

Some of the largest hardware makers in the world, including 3M, Cisco Systems, Corning and Qualcomm, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday firmly opposing new laws mandating Net neutrality--the concept that broadband providers must never favor some Web sites or Internet services over others.

...

"It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now," says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules."

For my part, (not suprisingly) I think that the less government red tape that the Internet is saddled with, the better off it will be.

For those who need something more entertaining to watch on the subject, here is a cheesy flash video from an anti-regulation group.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree. The last thing we need is a bunch of government idiots who don't know what they're doing trying to regulate the internet.

Oh, and I liked the part in the clip where it shows the moose the mountie is riding in love.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

In case you needed another reason to oppose this:
Musician Moby raises voice for Net neutrality

"Here we have a system that works fine," "Why do we want to change anything?"

-he says as he advocates sweeping new government regulations.

Honestly, I like some of his music- but the guy is a knucklehead.

[Bar Kochba]

nice video

[Lemur]

Like one of my favorite websites said:

When Did Network Neutrality Become A Partisan Issue?
from the this-is-unfortunate dept

One of the interesting things about the debates that we have here about legal issues concerning innovation is that they tend not to be partisan. It's never been easy to line up a specific intellectual property agenda with one party or another -- which tends to mean that any debate on the subject at least focuses a bit more on the issues, rather than stereotypes of Democrats or Republicans. However, it looks like the network neutrality debate is suddenly becoming partisan -- which is a worrisome trend. Lots of folks have covered the fact that an amendment today to include network neutrality language in a telecom reform bill was voted down. However, it's telling that everyone is now covering it as a partisan issue, whether the headline is "GOP Gets It Way on Net Neutrality" or "Democrats lose House vote on Net neutrality". This is an important issue to discuss, without there needing to be partisan bickering about it. Network neutrality is quite a complex topic, and unfortunately, it seems like both sides of the debate are simplifying it down to slogans which risk confusing, rather than enlightening, people. The efforts to write network neutrality into the law are a very tricky subject, with the obvious fear being that any regulations will inadvertently excessively penalize future developments. On the other side of the coin, those preaching a complete "hands off" position seem to ignore the fact that it's way too late for that. The only reasons the telcos are in the position to violate network neutrality are because they've pretty much been granted subsidies and monopoly rights of way -- and part of that bargain was that to increase competition, there needed to be open and fair access. To suddenly claim that we need a hands off approach is ignoring the fact that there's never been a hands off approach and the companies involved were granted special rights. Balancing these two sides is an important issue -- and simply lining it up as a Democratic vs. Republican issue is only likely to cloud it with pointless bickering and misleading statements on both sides.

[Xiahou]

I don't see it as partisan, although it would make sense that it fractures along liberal/conservative lines due to thought processes I guess.

I simply believe that before we apply a government mandated "remedy" we should first have a problem that needs curing. As it stands right now, supporters of "neutrality" are favoring draconian restrictions on telcos with virtually no examples of the kinds of abuse that would call for it.

Further, I can see many reasons why ISPs would want to prioritize certain kinds of data to their customers- and I think they should be able to do so. For example, telcos want to implement TV broadcasts over their networks- from what Ive seen of the proposed regulations, any kind of prioritization would be forbidden, so they would be unable to prioritize their TV service over Internet downloads or streaming content. That seems silly- if they can't ensure reliable, quality television, why on earth would they ever implement it? Im sure the same would go for many other new technologies.

It's also worth noting that many groups including networking hardware vendors have come out strongly against this- I trust their judgement on Internet development over Google, Amazon, ect.