Rick, thanks for the shout-out. Appreciate your showing both sides. I would be thrilled if folks took a look at my arguments, but Typepad is down right now! Sorry for the dead link.
Anyway, McCurry was an embarassment on this. He is on the right side of the argument, but his post was incoherent at best. I cringed, and then begged the HuffPo to give me a column to explain it properly. No response yet...
The question is not, do we want the telcos to "block" content. That's a straw man. Of course they will do everything they can to make money, like any other business.
The only truly progressive (did I just use that term???) and permanent solution to selfish companies is a free market. History is clear on that. Let new entrants come in and serve the customer in a hundred differnet ways.
A highly regulated market prevents new entrants, leaving the remaining players too powerful and also beholden to government. A terrible combination, and exactly what we have here in Cali with our utilities.
I don't love the telcos. I love the interweb and the people who build it. I think we should have freedom up and down the stack and let the customer make the call.Comment Posted By Matt S On 2.05.2006 @ 22:03
Hey there directorblue, I understand all of that. I'm a web developer by day and I know I don't want the FCC describing what protocols are allowed and which ones aren't.
The current legislation (COPE) doesn't not grant or take away neutrality. It does not empower the telcos with anything or take anything away. It does not address it pro or con. Educate yourself.
You'd be better served by forming your own opinion instead of repeating others. You should also realize that this is big corporations (telcos) vs. big corproations (content providers). It is not "of the people", unless, again, you simply parrot others.
You don't need to trust the telcos. Your supermarket can offer any product it wants, ditto the PC companies, ad infinitum, and these industries are serving consumers extremely well. The only place where customers are not served well are regulated utilities. That is exactly the model that the neutrality proponents are advocating.
Form your own opinion. The net has developed because of an absence of bureacratic involvement. I, for one, love that fact and would prefer that it continue.
Also, since I am ranting, go on record with your predictions and revisit them in five years. Are you predicting that, without neutrality, performance and variety of content on the web will be less than it is now? A lot of people predicited we'd run out of food in 1970, too.Comment Posted By Matt S On 30.04.2006 @ 20:02
The lefties are putting one over on you, guys. Come on, we are way too smart for this. The neutrality proponents are asking for more legislation on the 'net. Even it's well-intended, the result is an Internet with more gov't involvement, not less.
Look, the idea that the big, bad corporations are out to get us is obviated when there is competition. Let's let the market develop.
Or, put another way, neutrality legislation is a punishment in search of a crime. You don't need to like the telcos. Just vote with your $$. It is 100x better than asking the FCC to figure out what's right.
Think about their approach to "decency", then apply it to private bits on private networks. That's "neutrality". You don't want it.
More here: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/Comment Posted By Matt S On 29.04.2006 @ 16:54
Pages (1) :