Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[kandrathe]

I saw that some people are protesting at Google, over their apparent pledge breaking; "Don't be evil."

I think we've dabbled in discussing some of this during the 2008 election, as it was an issue that attracted many in the technical world to Obama (he was apparently for a free internet). Personally, my biggest concern is using the tiered bandwidth system to impose a kind of censorship. From a freedom of commerce point of view, I'm not opposed to corporations creating "fee for service" offerings even if that includes high speed bandwidth, QOS, and some exclusivity. I'm against the government dictating the structure of the internet. With all it's warts and ugliness, the existing internet is still marvelous in how simply we can now be connected to one another.

But, in general they would be creating a system of "the have's" and "the have nots". I'm already in one of the "have's" systems, Abilene. Allowing Google, and Verizon to determine the future of the internet is another example of this administrations approach of having foxes build/guard the hen house. The problem here is that it is the "governments" goal to give everyone access to high speed internet, rather than allowing the market to ebb and flow. I fear that government involvement would create unintended consequences.

Here in the US, I think the danger in the political realm in getting Congress involved in applying regulations to the internet, would be that the FCC (under Genachowski) will impose the "Fairness Doctrine" and other regulations meant to restrict broadcast TV and Radio. Where "fair" or "free" speech would be determined by those in power. The catch 22 here as I see it is that; congressional inaction is resulting in corporations implementing a tiered system which is violating the spirit of net neutrality, while I feel that government action would most certainly give "democratic access" but also impose multiple forms of censorship and violations of free speech. These rights violations may get worked out in lawsuits going up to the Supreme Court, over the next decade, but its an equal risk that they may form a long lasting precedence, and become another "Wickard v. Filburn". Of course, you might suspect knowing me, that I would favor allowing the internet to remain free of government meddling, and trust that just as has been demonstrated so far in it's history, that access would remain cheap and accessible. If providing "free" high speed access is a priority for some interested third party, then let them organize the funding required to give away that service (this is essentially how my organization can afford to be a part of Abilene, we have a deal among 30 local qualifying organizations, and the UofM ).

And, I'm concerned about trends such as the partially shelved regulations and fees in Wisconsin for using the internet for Issue Advocacy. Currently, the fee is $25, but it is unclear if that is per post, per e-mail, per server, or per viewer, and how it would be enforced. Just as with internet gambling, or Wikileaks, the trend would be to drive "commerce" and "free speech" off shore to safe havens to prevent the US government from hampering free speech, or imposing taxation on internet commerce. Couple that with the talk of an "Internet kill switch", and possible connection restrictions, you see the risk of the US governments controls on the internet mirroring those of some of the worlds most repressive regimes. Imagine what would have happened to Wikileaks, had it been housed on US based servers.