You are here

Economic downturn injects reality into net neutrality movement's nano-management petitions

Concern about an economic downturn has a powerful practical effect of rationalizing public policy priorities.

  • Net neutrality proponents failed to persuade every official body in 2006 and 2007 to support net neutrality legislation/regulation, because most every responsible official could plainly see that net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem. 
  • Now the net neutrality movement has re-focused its crusade on manufacturing and contriving a "problem" by focusing on FCC petitions against Comcast's network management of p2p and Verizon's admitted and quickly-corrected mistake concerning text messaging.   

The economic downturn now provides even more perspective of how far out of the mainstream the net neutrality movement really is.

  • When most people focused on communications are worrying about the important big picture problems like the downturn of the economy and quickly deploying broadband to all Americans, the net neutrality movement is diving deep , deep, deep into the nano-world of nano-regulation of the Internet -- by demanding that the FCC monitor and police individual bits of traffic on the Internet for purported and possible constitutional abridgements of free speech.
  • Not only has the net neutrality movement lost the sight of the proverbial "forest for the trees" -- the net neutrality movement is obsessed with delving into the nuclear structure of chlorophyl!

The FCC has the good sense to not be distracted by this radical push for nano-regulatory management of the private networks that together comprise the Internet -- when there are much much higher macro priorities to worry about and focus on.

  • Oh I forgot -- net neutrality is against "prioritization" of traffic over the Internet.
    • I guess under that logic, focusing on macro issues over nano issues would be "discrimination."
    • I guess the FCC should treat every petition to the FCC exactly the same, there should be no prioritization, scheduling, or managing of the process --because that would be "discrimination."