9 comments

• 

  Mike Linksvayer

  2 years ago

  Excellent post. I agree with all of it with one minor quibble that does not detract from your argument -- why characterize VoIP as high-bandwidth or next generation? Skype is evidence against both. And latency-sensitive applications have existed for decades, e.g., interactive shell.
  
  In my option the "net neutrality" debate has almost zero technical content. It is simply a power struggle. Which side one is on (apart from those with direct stakes) is determined by whether one fears and trusts corporations or government more. Or, like GOA, one has been bamboozled (that's the Christian Coalition's first name!)
• 

  Tim

  2 years ago

  Usable VoIP is about 5 years old, so it's "next-generation" compared with the web and email, which are 15 and 25 years old, respectively. And it's higher-bandwidth than those applications.
  
  So maybe we could say that the web is "last-generation," VoIP is "this-generation," and video on demand is "next generation."
• 

  Tim

  2 years ago

  Corporations may get involved in political issues that directly affect their bottom lines. But if they do, they always leave themselves plausible deniability. They can plausibly claim the lack of Chernobyl coverage was a coincidence. They can't possibly make the same claim if they put all pro-life groups on a blacklist.
  
  As for pro-life groups' budgets, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I know I've seen more pro-life than pro-choice advertisements in each of the three metro areas I've lived in the last 5 years (Twin Cities, Washington DC, St. Louis).
• 

  Luv2Box

  2 years ago

  Excellent dissection of the Combs quote! As this debate continues, it is becoming more and more clear how ridiculous the notion of net neutrality really is.
• 

  Net Chick

  2 years ago

  Why are all these random organizations coming out in support of net neutrality? What do pro-lifers and Moby/REM have to do with government regulation of the internet?
• 

  SoCal619

  2 years ago

  This whole issue has certainly made for strange bed-fellows. The way I see it, the internet has prospered incredibly without government intervention and will continue to do so...if there comes a time when regulation is needed, due to some providers nefarious deeds toward the consumer or whatever, then it'll be time to talk...but at the moment, what who does "regulation" purport to help? It's certainly not the consumer!
• 

  Tedwin

  2 years ago

  At the risk of being the pot calling the kettle black, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the groups who have thrown in their two cents on NN should stick to what they do best - and that usually has nothing to do with telecommunications. So many folks don't have the facts on this...Kudos to this site for providing so many good arguments for this debate, and making it so easy for a novice like me to grasp.
• 

  mrmilsap

  2 years ago

  I agree with your point that groups like the CC don't seem to fully understand the issue of NN. They claim that the ISPs must be stopped from having the chance to blacklist sites through their services. I agree that if any company starts controlling content thorughout the internet, NN laws would pass in an instant. That is why I think all of these pro-NN fears are unsubstantiated and seem to stem from fear internet companies have that they will lose business due to other companies offering newer services.
• 

  eee_eff

  2 years ago

  Hmmm...well noting that my post which noted the fact that NBC (owned by General Electric, which makes nuclear power plants) gave much less coverage to the Chernobyl accident than either ABC or CBS (This was before Fox) was deleted, I would restate the large corporations have a history of trying to eliminate dissenting opinions, and this extends into the education sphere as well (see Michael Perelman's book Steal This Idea) I don't believe we should allow corporations one more route to restrict Freedom of the Press and the Free Flow of Ideas..