[Whatever you think of the desirability of Net neutrality, keep in mind what the legislation actually says. It would award the FCC the power to regulate what business models will be permitted on the next generation of the Internet. --Declan] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Net neutrality primer for the rightosphere Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:58:32 -0700 From: Matt S <orinsf@private> To: VRWBlogosphere <orinsf@private> Hi all, pardon the "bulk" email. I want to bring to your attention the issue of net neutrality, which you may have heard in your travels. I would love for you to look into it and spread the word to your audience. In a nutshell, the concept of a network neutrality mandate is that all bits on the Internet must be treated identically, by law. It has become something of a hot-button because one of the telcos said some impolitic things that set off the conspiracy theorists and got the attention of Congress. While "neutrality" sounds benign, the proposed legislation would give the FCC powers that it currently does not have. Be clear, *there is no neutrality legislation in place and we are doing just fine. * More importantly, from a technical and economic perspective, I am a great supporter of innovation and experimentation and the free markets that enable them. A neutrality mandate would give the federal gov't regulatory powers to decide right and wrong at the router level. You should not be surprised that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are those on the far left, including MyDD, MoveOn and Craig Newmark (lovely guy but hardened socialist). Their arguments are very much in line with things like McCain-Feingold and the old Fairness Doctrine. It is also being sold as "fear the big bad corporations". I don't have any particular affection for any of the companies involved here, but I do know that customers know best. Some customers might indeed say, I will pay more for better video. Alternatively, the market may say "we like it the way it is", which is neutrality de facto. In either case, we don't need Congress or the FCC to make the call. The history of the Internet has taught us we should imagine the unimagined. Let's preserve the absence of inhibition that has gotten us this far. Keep it libertarian. No new laws. (Put another way: think about what the FCC has done in the name of "decency". Now expand it to private bits on private networks. That's "neutrality".) Some reading: Me, natch: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/ Martin Geddes describes why "neutrality" is ill-defined, unenforceable and naive: http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html Mark Cuban says "Hell yes, I'll pay for faster packets": http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488/ A new organization called Hands Off the Internet: http://handsoff.org Your feedback is welcome, kind regards, - Matt S The Only Republican in San Francisco www.onlyrepublican.com _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Apr 25 2006 - 14:24:32 PDT