Skip to main content

View Diary: The New York Times Busted Lying Through its Teeth (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The proposal does have those guarantees (7+ / 0-)

    The problem is that the FCC is currently too timid to do the right thing; they prefer to make politically-acceptable compromises.  Barring that, they kick the can forward.  If there becomes some kind of consensus on what they should do, then it happens.

    The term "purist" is quite reasonable in a news article because among the NN supporters, some have a very strict view that does not, frankly, jibe with the reality of how the Internet has ever operated, yet they demand that rules enforce their mythical view.  I have heard and read statements to the FCC that "all packets must be treated equally".  That is purism, and does not describe how the Internet ever worked.  (Hint -- the rules for blocking spam go well beyond blocking only "illegal" packets.)

    When the non-neutral behavior of an ISP is managed well, it looks neutral -- it is an illusion.  The FCC sort of knows that.  Look -- NN is our version of the Federal Reserve, BLM, EPA, etc. -- the teabaggers go off the deep end on misunderstandings of those things, and many on our side go off the deep end on misunderstandings of how the Internet operates.

    I actually (I have to be careful here because I am intentionally pseudonymous) wrote some stuff warning about the bad stuff that monopoly or duopoly (cable/telco) ISPs could do if the FCC dropped common carriage.  This was before the term Network Neutrality was even coined.  So far those things haven't been done, in part because the economics are bad, and in part because the political reaction would not tolerate it. So I'm actually working hard -- and I actually am paid for this at times -- to have a truly open Internet.  I'm just disagreeing about the tactics that call for technically non-viable solutions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site