The Truth About 'Net Neutrality' - Video

[DamianTV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8bUuvfDmsAs

Now, what is your take on the Net Neutrality Bill that you can NOT read a single page of?

[Mr Tansill]

False statements in this video include:

0:50 - "as some things happen in what we call the free market." False. The ISP world is not a free market - there is a marked LACK of consumer choice.
1:04 - "we have something called competition - capitalism - maybe you've heard of it." False. In my neighborhood, I have ONE option.
1:10 - "if an ISP was suicidal enough to try it, they'd be out of business in a hurry." False. In a free market, yes, this could happen. In a market which lacks choice, negative. Furthermore, it is doubtful the average consumer would be able to tell if they were being throttled by 15, 25, or 50%..."oh, you think your service is slower? Prove it."

Where he has a point is the secrecy with which these regulations have been developed and are being voted on. My position squares perfectly with his in this case, and I agree - the proposed regulations should be completely open to public view as they go forward to the vote. That said, I will say all the hu-ha about licenses required to operate on the internet and permission needed for "free speech" is pure, unadulterated fear tactics and SPECULATION with a goal of moving concerned and "lightly informed" citizens to his point of view.

The point of net-neutrality (in the honest, original sense of the phrase) was to eliminate the ability of corporations (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) to discriminate against traffic flowing through the pipes. A simple, one-sentence law could capture this restriction and could (and should) exist without damaging the internet as it exists today. This is what is actually meant by net-neutrality, and here is a great video which clearly illustrates the concept:


https://www.youtube.com/embed/NAxMyTwmu_M

Now, in the public forum, the concept has been (intentionally, in my view) mutilated and co-opted in order to serve certain interest groups and shape a message that plays very well to the element in our society that fears government intervention in so-called private enterprise.

Unfortunately, as often happens in our culture and political discourse, opposing sides begin talking about truly different subjects, while using the same language - the result being a confused (and polarized) populace and expanded freedom of action on the part of powered interests. There are really two separate subjects being batted around in the sphere right now: One is captured by the question "Should corporations be allowed to discriminate against certain traffic flowing through their pipes?" and the second issue is "Should the government be allowed to license/regulate/tax or otherwise control the internet?"

It is immediately apparent by the discourse of the opposing sides that these are the issues at stake, yet they are discussed as if in a vacuum - we don't see eye-to-eye because we are talking about different things.