In the New York Times of September 27 Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, advocates ‘Net neutrality,’ or limiting Internet service providers’ control over information.
[thanx to Stuart Silverstone for submitting this item !!]
Q. Is your view that the anti-Net neutrality infrastructure actually threatens political democracy? Does it go beyond just the technical structure of the Internet?
A. Net neutrality is one of those principles, social principles, certainly now much more than a technical principle, which is very fundamental. When you break it, then it really depends how far you let things go. But certainly I think that the neutrality of the Net is a medium essential for democracy, yes — if there is democracy and the way people inform themselves is to go onto the Web.
Q. So there are political consequences. Are there are also economic consequences? If so, what are they?
A. I think the people who talk about dismantling — threatening — Net neutrality don’t appreciate how important it has been for us to have an independent market for productivity and for applications on the Internet.
(..)
Q. Do you have a view about the behavior of the telephone companies in this debate? Is this simply traditional monopolist behavior, or is it more subtle? Have you talked to them to understand their motivations?
A. I have tried, when I’ve had the opportunity to find out, to understand their motivations, but I can’t speak for them. So all I can do is guess. But my guess is that it’s not that this is a nefarious planned plot to take over the Internet by a bunch of people who hate it. What I imagine is that it is simply the culture of companies, which have been using a particular business model for a very long time. So I think there is a clash of corporate cultures.
In the New York Times of September 27 Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, advocates ‘Net neutrality,’ or limiting Internet service providers’ control over information.
[thanx to Stuart Silverstone for submitting this item !!]
Q. Is your view that the anti-Net neutrality infrastructure actually threatens political democracy? Does it go beyond just [...]
Comments
@ 06:23
I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and we are opposed to net neutrality legislation. “a nefarious planned plot to take over the Internet by a bunch of people who hate it.” That sounds a bit paranoid to me. How is it in the interests of the telcos and other ISPs to limit access or degrade service or follow through on any of the other claims that have been mentioned in this debate?
As this one pager from NetCompetition.org points out, the interet already has tiers and internet traffic is treated differently.
http://www.netcompetition.org/cgi/doc_news/display.cfm?doc=8
Why enact net neutrality regualtions preemptively when no offenses have occured when the FCC and FTC already have the authority to deal with any potential offenses?
@ 14:25
Why trust the people who said the communication act of 1996 would increase competition, provide better service and lower prices?
@ 14:29
The Consumer’s Union, widely recognized to be politically neutral, had this to say about that legislation. BTW, who funds your advocacy group? Citizens? Or those with a lot of profits at stake?
@ 15:31
Howard, my apologies for the delay in responding and I’m not hiding anything about my group. The list of our coalition members, chairman and background are all avaible on our website. In addition, we back the following FCC adopted broadband access principles.
http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/principles.shtml
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
However, the proposed “net neutrality” amendments are overeaching and would bog down the development of the next generation internet. Sure money is an issue, why do you think the large content providers like Google support net neutrality?
‘Many Internet giants like Amazon and Google are backing neutrality, because they don’t want to pay any more for bandwidth, which — to match fast lane rivals — they’ll have to in a non-neutral regime.’
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-06-28ba.html
@ 11:25
Good site. Thanks:-)