John McCain, arguably the most nontechnical of all U.S. senators (which is quite a feat), has officially thrown his hat into the anti-Net-neutrality ring and introduced a bill similar to the amendment sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchinson a few weeks ago. This bill would essentially remove the FCC's control over network carriers and ISPs, preventing any form of Net neutrality regulation, and in keeping with the trend of titling bills the exact opposite of their intent, it's called the "Internet Freedom Act." Like Bailey-Hutchinson's amendment, it flies in the face of common sense and the service of government for the people.
In fact, the arguments against Net neutrality are so ridiculous as to be funny -- if those spouting them weren't so serious.
[ InfoWorld's Paul Venezia also offers an open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality. | Keep up on the day's tech news headlines with InfoWorld's Today's Headlines: First Look newsletter. ]
Take, for instance, this quote from Barbara Esbin, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation:
I remain concerned ... that the FCC is poised to take intrusive action into a well-functioning Internet ecosystem without either the demonstrated need or clear legal authority to do so. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.
This is basically the same thing as saying that you shouldn't apply the brakes on your car until you've already driven over the cliff. You shouldn't worry about the fellow pointing a gun at your head because he hasn't shot you yet. Even better, you shouldn't go to the doctor until you're dead. And yes, Ms. Esbin, there have been many examples of ISPs interfering with network traffic. They backed down when they were caught, but their frameworks for blocking certain traffic are ready for action at the drop of a hat.
Most people just don't seem to get that the FCC's proposal is essentially a confirmation of the status quo. I would object to any organization -- much less the government -- that attempted to control, restrict, or otherwise impair the Internet as a end-to-end network. But what the FCC has proposed wouldn't introduce new restrictions. It would instead formalize the Internet as an open, unrestricted network, exactly as it always has been, and is today. That's it.
Get the independent advice and expertise you need to support a virtual workforce.
The increase in Linux popularity has increased the frequency and sophistication of malware attacks. Read this 2 page white paper now to learn how you can protect your Linux environment with real-time protection that is certified by all major Linux vendors.
Download now »
Ensuring acceptable application delivery will become even more difficult over the next few years. As a result, IT organizations need to ensure that the approach that they take to resolving the current application delivery challenges can scale to support the emerging challenges. This handbook elaborates on the key tasks associated with planning, optimization, management and control and provides decision criteria to help IT organizations choose appropriate solutions.
Download now »
A common misconception is that mid-range storage requirements are dramatically different than that of a larger enterprise. Mid-range storage users may require less capacity, but they have similar functionality and management requirements. This ESG paper examines mid-range storage needs and reviews a new solution that adjusts size while retaining value, performance and functionality.
Download now »Actually, it is this columnist's utter failure to comprehend "Net neutrality" that would be funny... if the spreading of such misinformation were not so potentially destructive.
The fact is that "network neturality" is a corporate agenda. No one is censoring the Internet, nor would any ISP dare to do so; there's plenty of competition, and its customers would be gone in a minute. So, what's the motivation for the bogus scare stories, which are being spread by lobbying groups that are in the pay of Google? The answer is that Google -- which itself owns thousands of miles of fiber spanning the continent -- wants to get a leg up on ISPs, forcing them to provide bandwidth below cost so that consumers can view Google's ads and be tracked by Google's spyware scripts and cookies. Other provisions in the proposed regulations are intended to ensure that no competitor could arise to challenge Google's monopoly position in the online advertising marketplace.
Think about it: Has your Internet connection ever been censored? Then why impose regulations to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Read the actual regulations, and you'll learn the truth: this is a corporate agenda, not a populist one.
Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts
226 Recommendations
