InfoWorld Home / The Deep End / Net neutrality: Stupid is as stupid does
October 26, 2009

Net neutrality: Stupid is as stupid does

Federal legislators' utter failure to comprehend Net neutrality would be funny if it weren't so terrifying

| Print | 10 comments|
109 Recommendations

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.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
9 of 10 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
cfrostmrc 26-Oct-09 9:11am
They are not stupid. It takes a lot of $$$ to run for or keep their jobs.
KEN 26-Oct-09 12:54pm
This is an amazing article; I love the "lethal stupidity" comment. The fact is the people who want Net Neutrality have made almost no effort to explain how it will benefit anyone and in a world where voting yes on a ballot measure actually means no I can see why people would think this is a bad idea. One of the basic lessons of communication is when an idea is so clear to you that you think it needs no explanation it is very likely that no one else understands what you see so clearly. If you want neutrality you had better begin educating people on what that means. As my old drill instructor would say; “This is a teachable moment”. Paul, start educating (including those Senators) on the benefits of Net neutrality instead of ranting, it makes you look insulated and pompous.
ShrapnelCatcher 26-Oct-09 1:28pm
1 reply
"there have been many examples of ISPs interfering with network traffic." OK, maybe I'm out of the loop on this, so can you name a few? Otherwise, I see no need for "Net Neutrality" b/c they next group to try to turn the internet into their own little AOL will suffer the same result--we don't need the training wheels anymore--see ya! You need to do better than calling people stupid for their "utter failure to comprehend Net neutrality". Personally, I believe the USA giving up veto rights on ICANN is a much bigger threat to making certain IP's disappear than passing a net neutrality law that govern what an ISP can & cannot do. So, can you stop calling me stupid & actually tell me what am I missing?
Phansigar 27-Oct-09 6:57am
Comcast limited downloads, notably BitTirrent, or stopped them completely, wihout giving users a clue. When Comcast was outed it made lame excuses, but stopped doing it. Then it capped free monthly downloads, but at a generous 250 GB/month. Time Warner, OTOH, decided to cap free downloads at 2 GB/month. Want to watch an HD movie on line? Pay for it. Want more examples? Google those and follow some links.
ITisnotpolitical 26-Oct-09 2:17pm
1 reply
I've never posted a comment on any article on any website, but I've hit the point where I must jump in and object. As you can see from my ID, it's my opinion that IT is NOT political. Somewhere in the past year this magazine has decided that it is. If it's not Cringely spouting off some ridiculous one sided ideologically-motivated argument under the guise of expounding real IT, it's this dufus. Guys, here's the deal. Put your politics aside. You look ridiculous to those of us who look to your magazine for IT information, not political opinion. And, if you've really got the guts, look into the reasons why Net Neutrality is just another liberal word that's dressed up to look one way, but in fact is exactly the opposite. Seriously, I can get this drivel from the Huffington Post. Thanks Ken and ShrapnelCatcher for pointing out the obvious.
Phansigar 27-Oct-09 7:10am
IT isn't political? What's the DMCA, if not politicians interfering with IT. The DMCA is only one example, and perhaps the worst so far. When Congress passes laws that are directly IT related it's almost certain that the end user, the individual citizen, will suffer. So it will be if Congress puts control of the internet entirely in the hands of Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner,etc, which, of course, will not interfere with our free use, give preferential treatment to their buddies with the $$$, or limit small sites availability in any way. They'll merely "shape traffic," the industry euphemism for pay up or shut up.
Did Not 26-Oct-09 6:45pm
The 'most common lie' has always been "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It should be, to any freedom loving techno-geek, obvious, that to welcome the afore mentioned lie is "lethal stupidity." Please, wake up! We already have way way too much government involvement in our day to day lives. When you see proposed government regulation to promote "economic and social justice" every RED flag ever made has just been raised for those with eyes to see. Seriously, think about it: how much more can you get like Orwell's 1984 than this. Government regulation to ensure 'Net Neutrality'? Think about it. Do you trust yet another heaping layer of govern'crats making 'arbitrary' decisions for hidden alliances? I'd rather pay more for my free market traffic than to endure yet another loss of liberty because of more politics. This is the stuff of Chavez strangling freedom on all levels: property, dissent, association, CHOICE.
Publius 26-Oct-09 9:10pm
Paul do you say "Stupid is as stupid does" every morning when you wake up? I am not sure if you consider yourself a reporter or a columnist/opinion maker, but the fact of the matter is that you have failed at both. The fact of the matter is that you are lying in your "article" when you say "Most people just don't seem to get that the FCC's proposal is essentially a confirmation of the status quo." I guess you haven't read the NPRM. I have met guys like you and "essentially" always means the devils in the details. My guess is that most of the ISPs would be fine if all that was happening is the codification of the first 4 principles, but the 5 and 6 rule that have been proposed by the FCC are do cause serious concern and will stifle "innovation and investment." We are using more and more bandwidth every day and we need another 350 Billion dollars to expand the network. I guess you would propose that the government pay for it and take over the Internet completely. If networks are not allowed to manage their network then it will become congested for everyone. Someone waiting to check email will have to wait for their neighbor to finish downloading their illegal bootleg via the latest peer to peer application. Additionally, maybe you should do a little more research on McCain. He has been fighting to keep the Internet free since you were wading in the shallow end. AND guess what. You don't have to be a genius to realize that this proposed regulation by the FCC will eventually hurt the consumers.
headnerd 27-Oct-09 4:39pm
I'm going to pay AT&T and Verizon (for starters) to block all phone calls to my competitors. Once I have reaped the benefits of this I will be able to pay even more phone companies to block calls to my competitors. This "innovative and forward thinking" addition to revenue and enhancement of revenue, er service will have a positive impact on the bottom lines of the phone companies and help me achieve world domination er, a bigger, more successful business. This will be very unliberal of me, but hey, it's everybody for him/her/self. I definitly think that this net neutrality idea is a bad idea, and should be removed from all common carriers. They have the right to restrict traffic any way I want to pay them too. I'd even pay to have them block all the outgoing phone calls from all those nasty charities and politicians and pollsters and churchs and whoever bothers me at supper time. What right have they got to bother me when I can spend a few m/billion for a little peace and privacy and enhanced revenue. Down with net neutrality. What a commie pinko liberal bad idea. It's every billionaire for himself. If you can't pay the freight, you got no business trying to ride the gravy train so lovingly provided by all the altruistic megacorps.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.