Replies

I find the arguments against not to be persuasive

Apart from the people who promote this venture, what is wrong with it? As a goal, "neutrality" is laudable and in itself offers nothing to be against. It's proponents define it thus: "...a network-neutrality regime. In its strictest form, such a regime would require every bit that travels over a network to be treated the same way." So far, so good.

The author quotes the founders of the Internet as being opposed to mandates because they, "could" hamper innovation. But the author does not favor us with an explanation of why that should be so and does not quote Robert Kahn, the "father of the Internet," as to why the "could" should be thought of as " would" stifle innovation. Evidently, the "grandfather of the Internet", David Farber "has urged Congress not to enact net-neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet." But the author does not tell us how Mr. Farber feels about that neutrality mandates which would not prevent significant improvements to the Internet. In other words, the reader is left with an argument that is not persuasive because of its vagueness and incompleteness.

The author moves on to quoting a proponent of net neutrality, a college professor and therefore admittedly suspect, who predicts that that neutrality will discourage private investment and therefore promote government investment. Again, the "why" is not explained.

Next, the other cites Google's "propagandist" who the author says calls for the nationalization of the Internet because it will make it, "essentially open to all." What is wrong with that?-not the nationalization part, the open access part? Does the author mean to leave it to us to infer from the very fact of nationalization that the government will impose invidious discriminations?

Again, the readers entitled to ask, what evidence is the author reduces support of his contention that government nationalization will lead to government censorship? Again, the author quotes a professor, this time a truly nutty one, who wants to censor opponents of global warming on the Internet. From this we are to infer that all free speech will be censored by the government.

The author concludes:

Supporters of network neutrality won’t admit to any of this. In fact, they’ll tell you the opposite — that network neutrality will preserve your freedoms. In an ironic twist, one of the scare tactics they use is the idea that phone and cable companies may start blocking access to political websites. Of course, this is exceedingly unlikely in a competitive marketplace where customers can take their business elsewhere. But it is very possible in a world of government monopoly.

How persuasive are these arguments going to be when directed to an electorate which has just overwhelmingly elected a proponent of government intervention and regulation of the economy? His Republican opponent, anyway, campaigned on the dangers of unbridled, unregulated capitalists running amok. Are the author' s arguments going to change the minds of voters who accepted pro-government intervention arguments from both candidates? Will they do so in the teeth of demands of private industry, i.e. Google, for regulation? What do we have besides the ad hominem and the provenance of the supporters of net neutrality?

I am not unaware of what we are up against in this administration. Long before the election I had repeatedly posted that America is unwittingly accepting the risk that it may be putting an ideological tyrant in the White House. Couple that with the coming assault on talk radio, on Joe The Plumber, the threats of the prosecutors in Ohio, hate crime legislation, and the disposition of the established media to approve all of this, and we have the real potential for tyranny.

I want to see more intellectual rigor and better and more persuasive arguments.

I would be embarrassed to send this article to my techno-geek friend who is a libertarian at heart but who voted against Republicans this time because of the Iraq war. He already thinks that the arguments about the provenance of Obama's citizenship and the ad hominem which I've directed against Obama's radical associations, are not only unpersuasive but bordering on the paranoid. I have tried to react to this article, line by line, the same way my friend would. We lost the last election this way. Let us do better next time.

The author quotes the founders of the Internet as being opposed to mandates because they, "could" hamper innovation. But the author does not favor us with an explanation of why that should be so and does not quote Robert Kahn, the "father of the Internet," as to why the "could" should be thought of as " would" stifle innovation. Evidently, the "grandfather of the Internet", David Farber "has urged Congress not to enact net-neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet." But the author does not tell us how Mr. Farber feels about that neutrality mandates which would not prevent significant improvements to the Internet. In other words, the reader is left with an argument that is not persuasive because of its vagueness and incompleteness.

Part of the problem here is the inability of the techno people to articulate how innovation and invention work. I agree with the founders, but they are so wrapped up in the technology, they forgot to take a public speaking class. They are worried about regulations that say invention has to do this or that in this time frame using only this language and on and on. That's not the way a lot of these guys operate.

I would think that in this climate there is also a matter of funding for the R&D. Corporate dollars are not going to be invested in redundant technology or something that isn't going to sell. Regulating how innovation occurs is ridiculous and will stifle the creativity somewhere along the flowchart - the point of creativity, product design, funding, take your pick.

It also occurs to me that the non-corporate innovation can be controlled through the dangling of federal dollars before the programmers. That's a control. Venture capital, at the moment, is very hard to come by in this field.

Just some food for thought, because it's a slippery slope to communications tyranny if the feds start messing around with controlling the internet and any of it's offshoots.

Next, the other cites Google's "propagandist" who the author says calls for the nationalization of the Internet because it will make it, "essentially open to all." What is wrong with that?-not the nationalization part, the open access part? Does the author mean to leave it to us to infer from the very fact of nationalization that the government will impose invidious discriminations?

The author objects to Cerf using the "road system" as an analogy when the fact is that ISP's and bigger players that ISP's connect to OWN THE NETWORKS, the networks they built themselves and offer access to in return for that stuff called money, the very same thing they used to build the networks in the first place. Google offers content, but they don't have much in the way of network infrastructure, so it wouldn't surprise me that they'd like to have the government essentially take over someone else's property and run it according to Google's liking.

What some people here are most likely arguing about is the right to do absolutely what ever you please with a $50 ISP account. If a 80-90 billion dollar corporation like Google wants to do what ever they please with someone else's network, perhaps they can build their own darn network themselves.

“It's proponents define it thus: "...a network-neutrality regime. In its strictest form, such a regime would require every bit that travels over a network to be treated the same way." So far, so good.” [excerpt]

No, thats not good.

It undermines capitalism and free enterprise.

The government needs to stop telling people how to run everything and let ISP's sell whatever kind of service they want.

Don't like how your ISP handles your BITs?

Get a different ISP.

Except under net-neutrality, all ISP's will be the same, so getting a different ISP will be pointless.

If all ISP's were forced to operate exactly the same, there would be no competition.

Innovations would be hampered by bureaucratic red tape.

In the end you would wind up with one ISP, which would, naturally, be run by the government. (poorly of course)

Just look where bank-neutrality got us.

The banks were forced to give out loans to everyone equally, and now the economy is tanking.

The last thing we need is communist dictators who can't keep the government on an even keel telling us how to run our inventions.