About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereDebunking NN Myth #4
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-06-30 09:52
Neutrality-ites claim Network neturality is a principle. Their defense of it belies the fact that NN is NOT principled. They justify new NN regulation by asserting there is a duopoly and market failure. If the motivation is principled, why do Snowe-Dorgan and the Markey bills apply monopoly net neutrality rules to competitive broadband providers like wireless, new entrants like WiMax and free services like WiFi? If it is truly a necessary "competitive" principle, why not apply it to Microsoft, which the government ruled a monopoly, or Google and Yahoo which are quickly becoming the defacto duoploists of search? Real principles are not double standards like NN. If NN was originally really about opposing the creation of a two-tier Internet, why is Itsournet.org backing off that position and saying they are not opposed to Internet tiering based on speed and price? Could that be becuase it was not a principled position to begin with, but just a cheap ploy to inflame the Internet base? Could it be that positioning against a two-tier Internet was just a preposterously stupid stance given because everyone in America already knew that the Internet already has a slow lane of millions of users called dial-up and a fast lane called broadband? Oops! Guess that wasn't a principle after all. Nice try. If net neutrality is principled and cares about First Amendment free speech protection on the Internet why doesn't Snowe-Dorgan even mention the words free speech and First Amendment? Could their be an integrity problem with the so-called "principle" of net neutrality?
» |