Comments on: Doctorow’s Cognitive Dissonance http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: HandsOff http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-37039 HandsOff Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-37039 <p>There is a major disconnect in the logic of the pro-neutrality argument, as its supporters advocate a "free and open" Internet while at the same time pushing for Congressional regulation and legislation. Tim's conclusion is dead on in that Congress, given the opportunity to wield its power, has never been know to do so with a light touch, and net neutrality supporters are not going to approve of the resulting legislation. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and would encourage you to visit our blog at www.handsoff.org.</p> There is a major disconnect in the logic of the pro-neutrality argument, as its supporters advocate a “free and open” Internet while at the same time pushing for Congressional regulation and legislation. Tim’s conclusion is dead on in that Congress, given the opportunity to wield its power, has never been know to do so with a light touch, and net neutrality supporters are not going to approve of the resulting legislation. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and would encourage you to visit our blog at http://www.handsoff.org.

]]> By: HandsOff http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-55575 HandsOff Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-55575 <p>There is a major disconnect in the logic of the pro-neutrality argument, as its supporters advocate a "free and open" Internet while at the same time pushing for Congressional regulation and legislation. Tim's conclusion is dead on in that Congress, given the opportunity to wield its power, has never been know to do so with a light touch, and net neutrality supporters are not going to approve of the resulting legislation. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and would encourage you to visit our blog at <a href="http://www.handsoff.org">www.handsoff.org</a>.</p> There is a major disconnect in the logic of the pro-neutrality argument, as its supporters advocate a “free and open” Internet while at the same time pushing for Congressional regulation and legislation. Tim’s conclusion is dead on in that Congress, given the opportunity to wield its power, has never been know to do so with a light touch, and net neutrality supporters are not going to approve of the resulting legislation. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and would encourage you to visit our blog at http://www.handsoff.org.

]]> By: Christopher Anderson http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-37038 Christopher Anderson Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:02:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-37038 <p>I see the fundamental issue to be private property. ATT owns a network, should they be able to control it as they see fit? If it were a private toll road somewhere should they be able to disallow a certain customer, or make them drive in the slow lane (giant trucks that wear down the pavement for example).</p> <p> Of course, I say. <p> The government should make sure the different ISPs aren't colluding, are adhering to their contracts and competing against each other to set the price of the resource (Internet bandwidth). Basic capitalism.</p></p> I see the fundamental issue to be private property. ATT owns a network, should they be able to control it as they see fit? If it were a private toll road somewhere should they be able to disallow a certain customer, or make them drive in the slow lane (giant trucks that wear down the pavement for example).

Of course, I say.

The government should make sure the different ISPs aren’t colluding, are adhering to their contracts and competing against each other to set the price of the resource (Internet bandwidth). Basic capitalism.

]]> By: Christopher Anderson http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-55574 Christopher Anderson Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:02:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-55574 <p>I see the fundamental issue to be private property. ATT owns a network, should they be able to control it as they see fit? If it were a private toll road somewhere should they be able to disallow a certain customer, or make them drive in the slow lane (giant trucks that wear down the pavement for example).</p> <p><br><br>Of course, I say. </p> <p><br><br>The government should make sure the different ISPs aren't colluding, are adhering to their contracts and competing against each other to set the price of the resource (Internet bandwidth). Basic capitalism.</p> I see the fundamental issue to be private property. ATT owns a network, should they be able to control it as they see fit? If it were a private toll road somewhere should they be able to disallow a certain customer, or make them drive in the slow lane (giant trucks that wear down the pavement for example).



Of course, I say.



The government should make sure the different ISPs aren’t colluding, are adhering to their contracts and competing against each other to set the price of the resource (Internet bandwidth). Basic capitalism.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-37037 Gary McGath Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:39:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-37037 <p>It's a common fallacy: Give the government more power, and WE will get to decide how it's used.</p> It’s a common fallacy: Give the government more power, and WE will get to decide how it’s used.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-55573 Gary McGath Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:39:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/06/doctorows-cognitive-dissonance/#comment-55573 <p>It's a common fallacy: Give the government more power, and WE will get to decide how it's used.</p> It’s a common fallacy: Give the government more power, and WE will get to decide how it’s used.

]]>