Net Neutrality is Dangerous!
First of all, it appears that there are huge numbers of supporters for many of the, so called, "net neutrality" bills before congress this year. Go ahead and search Google or any other major search engine, and you will find endless pages of web-sites supporting a bill to protect the freedom of the internet. But what are they protecting, exactly? Has anyone stopped to dig a little deeper? It isn't hard, all you have to do is check out the text of some of the bills at Congress.org or go straight to the Senate page or the House of Representatives page.
Google's Net Neutrality site claims that "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet." While this sounds good to begin with, it goes on to blatantly lie about what's really going on in Congress by saying, "the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet." (italics mine) Wait just a minute ... why on earth would companies be trying to get congress to pass a law that would inhibit it's customers? That just doesn't make any sense. And don't get me started on the whole asking for "permission" bit! Just the idea that we have to ask the government for permission to do anything is completely against the principals of America.
Actually, if you take a look, there have never actually been (aside from a few minor glitches that were quickly repaired) any broadband carriers or ISPs that have "blocked, impaired or otherwise restricted subscriber access to the content of unaffiliated entities." With this in mind, why are so many people trying to get a bill passed to protect their "internet freedom?" What we have here is a terrifying step toward another infringement of our rights. In this particular case, it is the ISP's right to free speech. In particular, the ISP's right to descriminate in the matter of what they allow to be transmitted through their service. The bills before congress essentially compel the ISPs to allow any and all "legal" material to be broadcast over it's network. This may seem logical, but it's inherently immoral.
Say you wanted to give a speech about the fundamentals of Christianity, and you wanted to do it in the local mosque. I think we can all agree that this would be next to impossible, unless it was a very progressive mosque. The owners of the mosque would no doubt deny your access to this space and probably make a few other choice comments about your sanity as well. Under a law of this kind, it would be impossible for the owners of the mosque to stop your speech on Christianity.
Maybe that doesn't quite get your attention. How about this. This type of law would be equivalent to one that required you to open your doors to the public and allow anyone to enter off the street any time they wished to used a telephone. You would not be able to charge extra them if it were a long distance call, and you would not be able to censor their comments because that would be "descrimination." Does that make a little more sense?
Take some time out of your busy day to write to your Senators and Representatives and tell them to ditch the "Net Neutrality" bills before it's too late. You never know what liberties you'll have to give up next!