iBrasten

Neutrality Isn't That Simple.

June 22, 2006 @ 09:13 AM

If you’re a blog-reading technology type of person like myself, you’ve done plenty of reading and investigation into all this ‘Net Neutrality’ stuff going on. No doubt through all this you’ve come up with an opinion on the topic, and I say wonderful!

But not everyone thinks these things are open for discussion. David Geller of WhatCounts certainly doesn’t think so.

David states: “I find it absolutely shocking and, at the same time, horribly scary that this is even an issue to be debated.”

I couldn’t disagree more. America was designed for this. Discussion and debate are at the very core of who we are. And Net Neutrality poses some very interesting, and potentially significant, questions.

The free market for ideas is one of the things that make this country, and indeed the internet, so great. And an issue as significant as this requires all the more discussion.

So, now it’s your turn! I want to know what YOU think, because this topic IS up for debate! Leave a comment and let everyone know how you feel about this. I think there are a lot of unique opinions getting lost in the rhetoric, and only through open and honest debate will we find unique answers.

2 comments

2 Responses to “Neutrality Isn't That Simple.”

The phrase "net neutrality" is a marketing phrase designed to mislead people much like "windows genuine advantage". A neutral internet? Equal access to all? Who wouldn't want that? Then look at the supporters... Microsoft, Google, etc... We all know that Microsoft's sole purpose is "innovation" and to provide "genuine advantage[s]" to customers. Never mind that they destroy competitors and can magically make your non genuine software genuine by simply entering your credit card. In reality, these companies are motivated by their purpose, which is to make money for their stock holders, and their cause is not so noble as providing neutral internet access to all. In the end, I tend to think "net neutrality" is really "net special interest" for the big kids and simply is mislabeled in an effort to garner support. I think a good general rule is to ask yourself WWMD (What would Microsoft Do?) and then do the opposite. What do you think?

Ajo
June 24, 2006 @ 02:00 AM
I agree that the term is very misleading... the fact is that there's nothing neutral about either side, and the supporters of each side are lining up according to how it affects their pocketbook. As an internet customer, I'm very concerned about my internet provider suddenly degrading access to some sides and increasing speeds to others based on fees they're able to collect. That would make my internet experience much less attractive, and frankly I'm appalled that telecos are actually trying to push the idea. On the flip side, I'm very disappointed with the intellectual dishonesty of the Net Neutralists. Attempting to boil it down to a basic right inherent to the internet is silly, and stifling debate on the topic is reckless. Just because they "feel" the internet should be "neutral" or whatever doesn't mean they're right.

brasten
June 24, 2006 @ 08:37 AM

iBrasten

Neutrality Isn't That Simple.

2 Responses to “Neutrality Isn't That Simple.”

Search

about

Archives

Recent Articles