> This is ONLY a debate about whether control over our access should be in the hands of Internet Service Provider companies (ISPs) or… the Government.<p>As far as I'm aware, no one wants government to regulate the internet - Net Neutrality supporters just want rules saying that ISPs can't regulate it either. The issue of censorship is irrelevant, and could even be made explicitly so, if that's what legislators who oppose Net Neutrality are actually worried about.<p>> [ISPs] are regulated by YOU!<p>Except in areas where there's essentially a monopoly, and the high cost of entry into the market is likely to keep it this way, where ISPs are free to abuse their market position for fun and profit.<p>> who’s regulating the FCC?<p>The executive, legislative, and judicial branches.<p>> which hypothetical scenario is more likely? The FCC overstepping its current authority, or ISPs delivering services that its customers are not happy about?<p>... I'm speechless.<p>> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.<p>And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".
This (terribly wordy) article makes about 2 decent points:<p>1. The FCC is more than happy to step in and assume the power to regulate the internet, as every entity desires growth.<p>2. The more ISPs have to play to politics game, the more they will suck up to power, and look for ways to appease that power (ie gradual censorship).<p>To actually convince anyone, I'd suggest cutting most of the hyperbole and trimming up the salient points. In addition:<p>3. Communication has always been tiered between bundles of lowest-common-denominator services, and general net access. Past innovations were driven by modems (at least $20/mo on top of a landline), while the masses had only dialtone.<p>4. Don't be scared by graphics showing lots of hypothetical pricing options, the highest priced tier (what one currently considers "standard") will be the standard $20-$40 more than the budget tier. (A quick litmus test as to whether something qualifies as internet access is whether it allows ssh/vpn. And there will always be internet access available, barring it being made illegal, in which case government certainly isn't the <i>remedy</i>)<p>4. The more non-packagable applications there are in <i>widespread</i> use, the more common the demand for standard commodity access. Bittorrent and VPN are quite embedded.<p>5. If you are worried about net neutrality, work at a <i>local</i> level. Cities <i>already</i> have the power to regulate who strings wires on public land, and can even build out public infrastructure! The incumbents have been somewhat successful scaring off community fiber projects, but they won't win that battle indefinitely.
Funny that this is posted the same day that we see this from MetroPCS: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070797</a>
First two sentences:<p>"Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are DEMANDING Net Neutrality."<p>I stopped reading there. Based on the other comments, looks like I didn't miss much.<p>If you're doing this hacky a job of writing, you're either out of ideas and need to hit a deadline, you're getting a backhander from someone, or both.
Lot of nonsense in this article:<p><i>> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.</i><p>I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget?<p>THE GOVERNMENT.<p>Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink?<p>THE GOVERNMENT.<p>I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful <i>regulation</i> known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out.<p>Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.