Net Neutrality is a growing issue, and watching Glenn Beck (yes, he is a blowhard, but sometimes he asked questions that need to be asked) last night I discerned that the term Net Neutrality is being used to two separate and unrelated concepts:
- The original meaning (as I recognized) was the the Internet should be “neutral” to content providers and that the providers of the network should not treat data packets differently based on where they came from or what kind of content they contained. It should not matter whether my data packet is part of a service that competes with a service the network provider offers . It should not matter if the network provider offers the same kind of content (say, commentary, video, phone services) as another firm that doesn’t own the network. The network provider should not be allowed to restrict access to the network to protect their competitive offering. Now, this wouldn’t be as important if there were more network providers in the marketplace – but alas, in most places there are at most two firms who own portions of the backbone of the net, and in many only one. Therefore, the monopoly (or duopoly) of network providers should be prohibited from restricting competition by content providers. This is a freedom issue, and one that isn’t really a question of left or right. It’s more libertarian vs. monopolist (whether the monopolist is the state or a corporation).
- The second is the one I was made aware of on Glenn Beck’s show. This is the issue of the Internet being neutral, or balanced, in the content it actual carries, along the lines of the old FCC fairness doctrine, or similar CRTC rules that prevent(ed) radio stations from leaning too hard to the left or right. To me, this is political operatives, usually those in power, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, wanting to restrict access to content they find offensive or uncomfortable. This is just censorship by another name. The state should not be interfering in commentary or content that is on radio, television, the internet or in old fashioned print. The free exchange of ideas is a critical part of our modern civilization – and if you destroy that you are undermining the foundations of how we got to where we are today.
So I say, I’m all for Net Neutrality version 1, but definitely not for version 2.
As for the recent CRTC decision saying throttling is OK as long as it’s use is transparent to the customer – I say bollocks! The network providers will be able to hide this by simply saying “your network performance meets our targetted metrics” and I doubt they will ever set it up so that I know by the minute whether their throttling algorithms are affecting my data streams.
3 comments
Blame Crash says:
21 October 2009 at 18:54 (UTC -7 )
What’s with your put down of Beck? He’s one of the few media people who are doing their F@#*%!G job. No, he’s not very well liked by the vile “Prog” set, but that’s hardly the sort of thing to hold against him. Quite the opposite in fact.
Taliesyn says:
21 October 2009 at 21:05 (UTC -7 )
I don’t disagree that Beck is one of the few doing his job – on the only network worth watching. His style grates on a me a little and his views are sometimes a little over-simplified. But I’d watch him and Hannity and O’Reilly before I watch Olbermann or Stephanopoulos.
Cynical Bard says:
31 October 2009 at 11:45 (UTC -7 )
Somebody must like him. He has two books on the New York times best seller list (Top Ten) at he and e time and 3 million people watch.
I enjoy his mocking of the White House. He put in a special phone and says “If I’m wrong, call me” LOL