Wednesday, December 08, 2010

You Think "Net Neutrality" Means Download Restrictions? Think Again

From PJ Media:

The push for net neutrality, however, was quickly picked up by other people for other political purposes, starting with the idea that “net neutrality” meant that everyone ought to have equal access to Internet service, whether they live in the borough of Manhattan, or Manhattan, Kansas, or in a cabin twelve miles by road from the nearest human habitation. This quickly picked up other ideas: that “net neutrality” meant different ethnic groups have equal access — which would mean the government looking not just at the content of the messages, but the race of the person on the wire; or that different viewpoints ought to have equal access to the Internet — so, potentially, Fox News would be limited based on how much bandwidth the Huffington Post consumed; and even that “hate speech” and “lies” could be regulated.

This is what we might call net neutrality of the second kind: not content neutral, but instead, content “fairness.” --Richardson quoting Charlie Martin

Inevitably, politically-appointed regulators will make politically-determined decisions.

This ain't "net neutrality."

It's more Statism.

3 comments:

John Foust said...

No, it's more about preventing you from dropping your cable TV subscription and switching to Internet-based television services.

Deekaman said...

No, John...it may appear that way, but all you have to do is listen to what they are saying about right-wing blogs. This is an attempt to silence a la the "Fairness Doctrine".

John Foust said...

I have no doubt that any political idea or proposal will be jumped upon by hangers-on who want to ride along. The Internet carriers are far more concerned with making money. In most cases, your Internet provider is also a video provider. They want to protect their video business. The issue of FoxNews.com's bandwidth (from where? to where) is of little concern to their bottom line.