Why would the US house of representatives vote against net neutrality? The telecommunication companies want to charge different amounts based on different internet traffic, like placing a massive toll on VoIP calls, for instance, to prevent the internet telephone business from competing with their traditional copper network.
I think the primary problem is marketing and education. When the representatives think "internet", they're not thinking about abstract traffic. They're thinking about websites. And when they think "neutral", they're not thinking about pricing. They're thinking about partisan politics, because that's their world. So "net neutrality" to a politician is more likely to mean "enforced non-partisan rhetoric on websites" rather than "no toll booths on the internet".
Even if they did understand the second meaning, they're unlikely to vote for it, because it seems to do with restricting the freedom of the companies who make the massive "campaign contributions" (ie bribes). So our likely scenarios are a misunderstanding or a misalignment of interests. Either way, without a change in tactics, we're likely to see US legislation supporting a selectively-choked internet.
Mokalus of Borg
PS - There are many excellent articles on this subject available.
PPS - Including the Ask A Ninja video.
No comments:
Post a Comment