Lots of folks still don't realize what the Barton Bill could do to the Internet, and refuse to believe the "doomsday" examples we bring up to back Net Neutrality principles (however they're enforced).
Those who need more convincing can turn to the latest post from Gawker's Nick Denton. "We've never liked crowds, nor believed in their wisdom," says Denton, explaining some corporate shuffling. "Like a TV network, we have to back our hits, and clear out our schedules of the less popular shows."
Those who don't insist on a common carrier provision for internet utility providers are condoning turning the Internet into TV. A broadband infrastructure that charges content (or application) providers "Quality of Service" fees if they want speedy transmission rates means little bloggers will be forced to conduct their conversations at a frustratingly slow pace. Banding together won't help them, as Gawker proves.
We were just starting to enjoy our access to the Long Tail. Are we really willing to give it up so quickly?
We need to take a page from the Microsoft Playbook and insert some Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) into this discussion.
Dont call it Net Neutrality - call it what it is Net Discrimination. Call it anticompetitive.
Net neutrality is so amorphous it doesnt do anything to help people realize just how FUBAR this really is.
Posted by: Sean Bohan | July 05, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Yeah, good point Sean. It is discrimination against content and applications that don't have the money to pay to be "broadcast", or that undermine comfortable business models (like long-distance phone charges) of un-innovative businesses.
Posted by: Iz | July 20, 2006 at 07:46 AM