Wow, what a thread. I started flagging posts that I wanted to respond to specifically. Well, there were far too many. I might yet respond to a few.
In general, net neutrality is an ideal, and an ideal that most probably cannot be met in all cases for everyone. To try to do so coercively through government is folly. Some spoke of fundamental principles that the internet is based on. Others mentioned the days of compuserve and aol, and not so directly juno. Did those providers follow the principles or ideals of the internet with remote fidelity? Did we need to beat them with the big stick of government to get them to behave? No, technology advanced and in the long run those services proved self-destructive. Any ISP in this day and age that tries to do the same WILL meet the same fate. It might take a little bit. It might take another technological leap, maybe some fancy new way of doing wireless (also mentioned in the thread), but it will not stand. The internet is the paragon of a self correcting entity! You guys are all techies and you all know that! Why do we need the government involved at all? As for the political side of things, I am formulating a saying, quote, poem or whatever, I don't know what form it will take, but the idea is solidified. It goes something like this: "I don't believe that a free market is perfect, or that freedom is the most pragmatic way to acheive any result. I do believe that it works well enough that we can afford to be just. Justice dictates that one's freedom is only hampered as a result of ones actions injuring another." The idea has been sedimenting for some time, but it was only today that I first put it in words. It needs polishing. My goal is freedom. I grow very weary of arguments for and against free markets or capitalism. The simple fact of the matter is that when a people are free to own property, to use it as they will, and to dispose of it (sell it) how and when they like, the result is free market capitalism. I do not find sufficient fault with capitalism and free markets to throw freedom out. I think someone also mentioned baby with the bathwater in the thread, another I marked for comment. To drive the above point home, sprint intercepting DNS is shady at best, breach of contract at worst. What if sprint made the policy readily available to customers and potential customers? What if we make an overly strict, knee-jerk reaction law, and that precludes any future contract or policy along the same lines that *is* honest, and *is* desirable? Freedom is lost, and very very hard to get back at that point. To the point it is found that sprint has injured their customers (breach of contract or false advertisement) then yes, it ALREADY IS illegal, no need to invent new laws there. This was compared to arsen by the illustrious sjansen. Arsen clearly injures another party, the government is well within its role to punish and/or prevent such, as it is already well within the role of government to remedy fraudulent deception in the form of false advertising or breached contract. This concludes the usefulness of the comparison, it makes absolutely no sense to conjure horrid images of blatantly wrong behaviour that is "profitable" to categorically condemn the profit motive, least of all to claim that such a thing is born of freedom, as the very example is most antithetical to freedom itself. This is just an example. Any complaint citing need for neutrality most assuredly can meet the same analysis. And rememnber, the internet is robust! It treats censorship as an error and routes around it, that includes the end customer finding a provider that meets their needs. (or subverting the provider through a technological arms-race). This is not to say that practices that *are* illegal should be ignored, and "left to the free market to sort out." That is nonsense. The free market *requires* order and the punishment of those that break the rules. It is also most effective when the rules are simple enough to be understood by all and readily and equitably enforced. So, when you see something you don't like, and you want to say "there ought to be a law!" Step back, see if there is a case to be made in current law, better yet in the simplest laws of all that we have had since common law. That way we can simplify the process, and instead of burdenning everyone with countless, inefficient and impossible to grok (in aggregate) laws, we can live by well established principles. Von Fugal -- Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure -- Robert Lefevre
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
