Here's just 1 piece I saw that made me wonder why our JPP conservatives seemed overjoyed by the news that the FCC is going to implement an Order on Net Neutrailty:
"Why conservatives and libertarians should oppose Net neutrality
In a nutshell, the concept of a network neutrality mandate is that all bits
on the Internet must be treated identically, by law. It has become something
of a hot-button because one of the telcos said some impolitic things that
set off the conspiracy theorists and got the attention of Congress.
While "neutrality" sounds benign, the proposed legislation would give the
FCC powers that it currently does not have. Be clear, *there is no
neutrality legislation in place and we are doing just fine. *
More importantly, from a technical and economic perspective, I am a great
supporter of innovation and experimentation and the free markets that enable
them. A neutrality mandate would give the federal gov't regulatory powers to
decide right and wrong at the router level.
You should not be surprised that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are
those on the far left, including MyDD, MoveOn and Craig Newmark (lovely guy
but hardened socialist). Their arguments are very much in line with things
like McCain-Feingold and the old Fairness Doctrine.
It is also being sold as "fear the big bad corporations". I don't have any
particular affection for any of the companies involved here, but I do know
that customers know best. Some customers might indeed say, I will pay
more for better video. Alternatively, the market may say "we like it the way
it is", which is neutrality de facto. In either case, we don't need Congress
or the FCC to make the call.
The history of the Internet has taught us we should imagine the unimagined.
Let's preserve the absence of inhibition that has gotten us this far. Keep
it libertarian. No new laws.
(Put another way: think about what the FCC has done in the name of
"decency". Now expand it to private bits on private networks. That's
"neutrality".)"
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/25/why-conservatives-and/
Add to that the fact that nobody has seen the full text yet, and the GOP commissioners voted against it.
"Why conservatives and libertarians should oppose Net neutrality
In a nutshell, the concept of a network neutrality mandate is that all bits
on the Internet must be treated identically, by law. It has become something
of a hot-button because one of the telcos said some impolitic things that
set off the conspiracy theorists and got the attention of Congress.
While "neutrality" sounds benign, the proposed legislation would give the
FCC powers that it currently does not have. Be clear, *there is no
neutrality legislation in place and we are doing just fine. *
More importantly, from a technical and economic perspective, I am a great
supporter of innovation and experimentation and the free markets that enable
them. A neutrality mandate would give the federal gov't regulatory powers to
decide right and wrong at the router level.
You should not be surprised that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are
those on the far left, including MyDD, MoveOn and Craig Newmark (lovely guy
but hardened socialist). Their arguments are very much in line with things
like McCain-Feingold and the old Fairness Doctrine.
It is also being sold as "fear the big bad corporations". I don't have any
particular affection for any of the companies involved here, but I do know
that customers know best. Some customers might indeed say, I will pay
more for better video. Alternatively, the market may say "we like it the way
it is", which is neutrality de facto. In either case, we don't need Congress
or the FCC to make the call.
The history of the Internet has taught us we should imagine the unimagined.
Let's preserve the absence of inhibition that has gotten us this far. Keep
it libertarian. No new laws.
(Put another way: think about what the FCC has done in the name of
"decency". Now expand it to private bits on private networks. That's
"neutrality".)"
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/25/why-conservatives-and/
Add to that the fact that nobody has seen the full text yet, and the GOP commissioners voted against it.
