Last updated: February 21, 2008 - 1:11am
NET NEUTRALITY AS CAMPAIGN FIANCE REFORM
[SOURCE: Tales from the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] It is quite possible that the most important piece of campaign finance reform to pass in 2006 will be Senator Wyden's â€œInternet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006.â€ Until now the Internet did not require candidates to raise huge amounts of money to pay for the ability to reach voters. Without Net Neutrality, all that changes. The Internet will increasingly come to resemble radio, television and cable, where the well-funded buy their way onto your screen and the rest get crowded out. Not because of any evil corporate conspiracy or antidemocracy cabal, but because of the iron rules of economics. If companies can make money charging political speakers for premium access, they will. If that's bad for democracy and free speech, too bad. Companies aren't in business to promote democracy, but to maximize value for shareholders. If that means that well-funded candidates and talk radio hosts can buy â€œpremiumâ€ access while independent bloggers and pod casters can't, that's what will happen. Too bad about that democracy and free speech thing. Nothing against it you understand but, y'know, it's just business. Publicly traded companies exist for one purpose â€” to maximize shareholder value. According to free market boosters, that's what makes them so incredibly efficient and wonderful. As a result, they will maximize revenue wherever permitted. They are not about promoting free speech or democracy. While that may be fine when two appliance companies try to sell you different brands of toasters, it can cause all kinds of â€œunintended consequencesâ€ in the â€œmarketplace of ideas.â€
See also --
* Building Momentum from the Internet Communications Industry for "Net Neutrality"
[SOURCE: Jeff Pulver Blog]
[Commentary] As I have been blogging for so many months/years now, the Net Neutrality issue will be the seminal issue to determine the rules shaping the future of the Internet. It is now clear that Net Neutrality will be at the heart of Congressional debate in the US Congress this year. To that end, we are trying to build a groundswell of support from Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts who might not normally participate in the political process.
THINK TANK FORUM: NET NEUTRALITY EQUALS PROPERTY THEFT
[SOURCE: InfoWorld, AUTHOR: Grant Gross, IDG News Service]
Speakers affiliated with Progress and Freedom Foundation , promoting its own bill to deregulate broadband providers, criticized net neutrality bills, which would prohibit broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast from blocking or slowing services to competing services such as VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol). "There's nothing neutral about net neutrality," said Jeffrey Eisenach, chairman of the consulting firm CapAnalysis Group and co-founder of PFF. "Net neutrality is, in fact, the theft of property rights from [broadband] infrastructure providers. It's simple regulatory theft -- the transfer of ownership from one group of people to another group of people."
* Internet Non-Discrimination Act: Friend or Foe?
- S.2360 Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006
- Don't let the service providers discriminate on the Internet
- Another view of "net neutrality"
- House Committee on the Judiciary Mark-up: Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006
- Network neutrality required to spur innovation
- An Analysis of the Net Neutrality Debate of 2006
- Network Non-Discrimination and Quality of Service
- Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like
- Whose Internet is it, anyway?
- Reps Doyle and Markey: FCC Should Move on Net Neutrality In December
- Don't Blow It, Congress
- Wireless Carriers Resist Open-Internet Stance
- Latest Commentary on Net Neutrality
- Keeping a Democratic Web