Comments on: Ignorance is Strength

By: Morgan Hargett

Morgan Hargett — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:34:53 +0000

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81…

By: Morgan Hargett

Morgan Hargett — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:34:53 +0000

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81…

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:32:01 +0000

On the grounds that the FCC has applied four principles of network neutrality to information services until mid August. This was done to give congress the time necessary to revise the Communications Act. You may wish to do more research on the this topic Tim.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:32:01 +0000

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:13:19 +0000

On what grounds is it currently illegal?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:13:19 +0000

On what grounds is it currently illegal?

By: Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:19:56 +0000

So their "numerous examples" of net neutrality abuse in the US amount to one alleged incident by an ISP in North Carolina that no one has ever heard of. That hardly sounds like a looming crisis.

Maybe that's because it's not legal yet to discrimninate against legal web content. In three months it will be, and the phone companies have announced plans to set up disciminatory offerings.

By: eric

eric — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:40:50 +0000

I think the examples given so far of “neutrality violations” are like the first symptoms of a disease. Like the abnormal cells that sometimes presage a full-blown malignancy. Everybody says early treatment is best. “Nip it in the bud.”

Tim’s point is that the treatment might be worse than the disease, which is reasonable. (As in slow-growing prostate cancer, people who are treated agressively — with the accompanying side effects — tend not to live significantly longer than those who are left alone and watched carefully.)

We really have a dilemma. I believe the government does not need to regulate at this time, but needs to somehow communicate clearly to ISPs that if they start censoring or inconveniencing certain websites or certain applications, regulation will come down so hard and fast it will make their heads spin. At this point, to walk softly with the ISPs, but carry a big regulation stick and swagger like you aren’t afraid to use it, is the way to go. How best to communicate this intention, I don’t know, but I think gov’t should act with these goals in mind.

By: Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:19:56 +0000

So their "numerous examples" of net neutrality abuse in the US amount to one alleged incident by an ISP in North Carolina that no one has ever heard of. That hardly sounds like a looming crisis.

Maybe that's because it's not legal yet to discrimninate against legal web content. In three months it will be, and the phone companies have announced plans to set up disciminatory offerings.

By: eric

eric — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:40:50 +0000

I think the examples given so far of "neutrality violations" are like the first symptoms of a disease. Like the abnormal cells that sometimes presage a full-blown malignancy. Everybody says early treatment is best. "Nip it in the bud."

Tim's point is that the treatment might be worse than the disease, which is reasonable. (As in slow-growing prostate cancer, people who are treated agressively -- with the accompanying side effects -- tend not to live significantly longer than those who are left alone and watched carefully.)

We really have a dilemma. I believe the government does not need to regulate at this time, but needs to somehow communicate clearly to ISPs that if they start censoring or inconveniencing certain websites or certain applications, regulation will come down so hard and fast it will make their heads spin. At this point, to walk softly with the ISPs, but carry a big regulation stick and swagger like you aren't afraid to use it, is the way to go. How best to communicate this intention, I don't know, but I think gov't should act with these goals in mind.