Sunday, March 14, 2010

"Net Neutrality"

Extraordinarily bad.

Why would we trade some dreamed-up "enslavement" to "evil" corporations for true enslavement to the government?

Common Cause defines it as, "the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet Service Provider."

I haven't had any problems with my ISP telling me I can't access some content. Have you? But even so, there are no Free Speech rights required of your ISP. The government is required to allow you to speak your mind. FCC control of the internet runs the risk of the return of "Fairness Doctrine".

Heartland Institute lays this out quite well.

The internet is the last bastion of truly free, unfettered speech. Government controls the Internet in places like China, Iran and Venezuela. How's that working out?

If allowed, this will not end well.


Ordinary Jill said...

So, you wouldn't mind your ISP blocking your access to until Disney/ABC ponies up more money per page view? It will be a lot like the cable TV disputes between Charter and the Big 10 Network (and the more recent one between Cablevision and ABC that threatened to blackout the Academy Awards in much of the New York market). Right now, ISPs are not allowed to block your access to their competitors' content. The net neutrality movement seeks to keep that status quo.

Deekaman said...

I'll change ISPs. I don't need the government and their potential for abuse to protect me.

And I ask the same question I asked before.....are you ok with this if it's Bush? Or for that matter...yes just assume this administration has no nefarious intent (which I doubt), what about the next? Or the next? Or the one after that.

Governments that accumulate power eventually use it against their own citizens. It has always happened, it will always happen.