 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
If you'd rather watch tv than read, here you go :
If you'd rather read, let me first say that very intelligent and well spoken people have made all the points, as well as they could conceivably made, to Congress. The only possible problem is that presenting things to Congress puts a certain burden on the discourse, and might even transform it into something people find difficult to read. So I imagine my contribution can be explaining things, succinctly and clearly. I. What is Net Neutrality ? Ed Fartacre may pretend like he doesn't know, but Net Neutrality is the principle that the user is the only one to decide what information moves through the Internet. The corporations would want to change that, so that much like cable TV, what moves through the cables is their decision. II. Why is the case against Net Neutrality disingenuous ? 1. Because the corporations are trying to hide their real motivator. It is a fight for control. They own the cables, and want to ensure they control what goes through those cables, for the very economical purpose of increasing profits. They however claim that the real motive is their desire to offer new services and spark innovation. Fact of the matter is, not one single thing on the Internet today was made by any corporation. Web servers are Open Source. Php code to do virtually anything is Open Source. Mozilla is Open Source. Your email moves because of sendmail. Open Source. Myspace was made by Tom. Google was made by Sergey and Lawrence. Each and every single bit, useful or valuable out there today was made by persons. Persons enabled to communicate, work and succeed by the neutral nature of the Internet. As the Internet works today, Zenofeller.com is potentially as powerful as AT&T's website. The only deciding factor is how many people go read either. If nobody cares about AT&T, but many people care about zenofeller, even if AT&T spends billions on advertising and zenofeller doesn't spend a cent, he will come out ahead. The Internet is neutral. 2. Because corporations are trying to stifle innovation. The Open Source movement has taken the IT world by storm. People playing around, in a loose network organised by competent engineers are able to create better software, faster, for a fraction of the cost Microsoft or Adobe expend to create inferior software, slower. It's a fact, and it's unavoidable. The only way old business can disrupt and maybe even vanquish this superior competitor is to prevent free communication. If people aren't able to freely interact, they will be forced to go back to the antiquated and inefficient system of working for a corporation, and making Bill Gates rich on their sweat and brains. 3. The corporations are paying. It's the sad fact of the matter that they spend tens if not hundreds of millions simply on paying off senators. If you discovered somebody paid the judge, would you imagine it's because they actually have a case that could win on it's own merit ? 4. The corporations are lieing. When countering the claim that their proposed measures would make the Internet fast for big companies and slow for bloggers, their response is, do you imagine Google, that runs blogger.com will allow the service to be slow ? No. That was not the point. We were not discussing blogger. We were discussing bloggers. There still exist independent people. For instance, me. If the corporations get their way, I will have to either move to blogger or give up. Why should I be forced to make that choice ? So that Fartacre can make more money ? How about he goes fuck himself with a broomstick.  Oh, and what's all that bullshit about hospitals and doctors they keep going on about ? I never heard about anyone dieing because the doctor couldn't get on the Internet fast enough. Hospitals already have and use expensive comm systems designed specifically for them. Are we to throw all that away so Eddie can buy a larger dildo ? III. Why is the case against Net Neutrality valid ? Because it argues the government should stay out of private business. It certainly should. But sad fact of the matter is, it's already in it. Along with many people, I was against the war in Iraq, for a slew of good reasons. But once there, I don't see it as particularly sane to just drop everything and get out. As it stands right now, I can't legally start my own AT&T, draw cables and give them the finger. The government enforces a monopoly in telecom for the benefit of AT&T. The government is already in. Now, can a monopoly claim the government should stay the hell out and not regulate it's behaviour ? Sure. But only if it is willing to give up it's monopoly status. Until then, it's not the monopoly's place to complain about being fucked by the government's intrusiveness, since it only exists because we, the consumers, got fucked in the first place. Corporations may be persons, but monopolies are not. And remember, in Soviet Russia, you don't own the corporations, the corporations own you. 1 |