Musicians for a Well-Regulated Internet

by Tim Lee on May 21, 2006 · Comments

Moby thinks we should regulate the Internet. If the telecom policy experts at the Christian coalition didn’t persuade you that neutrality regulation is a good idea, then technology whizzes like R.E.M., Q-Tip, the Indigo Girls, Jill Sobule, Wilco, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the Roots, and the Dixie Chicks certainly will!

Meanwhile, the pro-regulation side continues to demonstrate its incredible talent for doublespeak:

Net Neutrality is the long-held principle that ensures small music blogs and independent news sites open just as easily on people’s computers as large corporate sites. Companies like AT&T are spending millions lobbying Congress to pass legislation that critics charge would set up a discriminatory tollbooth system on the information superhighway. The proposed legislation would allow Internet providers to decide which Web sites work best on people’s computers based on who pays them the most, favoring large corporations with deep coffers while marginalizing everyday people, community groups and small businesses.

AT&T, of course, is not “lobbying Congress to pass legislation” about neutrality regulation. Rather, they are opposing new regulations on the subject. It takes a fair amount of rhetorical contortionism to take the posture of the beleaguered defender of the status quo, when you are, in fact, the one pushing new regulations. For example, Moby (no doubt reading talking points prepared by others) says there will be “a huge public backlash” if Congress “sells out the Internet.” If so, it will be one of the strangest backlashes in history. Most backlashes are spontaneous outpourings of anger against an action the public dislikes. But this “backlash” would be a carefully stage-managed reaction to Congress’s decision to leave things as they are. Of course, given the way the “Save the Internet” crowd is describing the issue, most of the people participating in the “backlash” wouldn’t know they were the ones lobbying for new legislation.

Frankly, I can’t blame Moby and company for being alarmed. I’d be alarmed too if all I heard was MoveOn’s version of the story.

Comments Posted in: Broadband & Neutrality Regulation

  • Terra
    One must be careful about supporting legislation that one does not understand. Please study up on channelization and the concepts of routing/prioritization. The language in the Neutrality camp is far too vague and ineffective. I am only starting to see language on the issue that will come close to preventing "preferred" treatment over the public internet. And the language is coming from folks that are being deemed as the enemy in the neutrality press. They came up with the concept of tiered service and with ways to help prevent inappropriate filtering. This is actually a viable approach. The original language that's been floating around as "Network Neutrality" is flawed at best, fantastical at worst. I think it's good that radical viewpoints are keeping the issue alive..."oh, no the internet is falling". But I also think that folks that are in the know aren't stupid. Nor one sided. They invented the public internet...something that is a beautiful and not easily curruptable thing. And they have been working on this issue for a while. So be patient. Keep the issue alive, but please don't position these techs as "the enemy."

    Our best defense, of course, is to do business with people that we trust. Subscribe to ISPs with value systems that in line with our thinking. We are not stuck with one ISP. The Telecom Act of 1996 helped insure that. So the government isn't doing THAT bad of a job. Not perfect, and must continually be reminded of what's important to us. But please stop making it sound like "the government" is all bad and is totally in cahoots with "the big bad carriers." Most of these folks are just like you and I.
  • John B.
    Isn't your position more deceptive than any other? In a law-free environment ATT, Bellsouth, Time Warner and other large telecoms can impose tiered services under which those who ;pay more get faster/better service. If Congress enacts NN, it will protect consumers from that in the same way the FCC Act protects them from suffering tiered service with "slower" phone service for those who don't pay more. The telecos should remain common carriers, not content deciders. If that takes a federal law, so be it.
  • Tim, if you look at the rhetoric of the anti-NN side, it's clear that they are flat out liars. How can they seriously argue that Google and others want to dump all of the costs on consumers? They are trying to present themselves as passing the buck off to the Big Bad Content Providers rather than home users. Well, that is why they're doing. They want to use the former to subsidize the latter.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: