Net neutrality: one Spartan takes on Congress
Net neutrality, a term coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, is the "principle that network operators should not discriminate among network applications" (from Wikipedia) -- decrees that all websites, be it Joystiq or USA Today, are created equal. But what if net neutrality was disturbed? Take a look at the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), which would diminish the network neutrality in the US. A recent episode of Halo 2-themed video blog This Spartan Life, entitled "Can't Buy Me Web," demonstrated what COPE could mean for the internet. And, oddly enough, Congress listened.According to This Spartan Life, their latest episode is being "passed around [Congressional offices] to galvanize the coalition fighting to get net neutrality written into law." We are very impressed, but at the same time very amused that Senators are watching one Spartan "stick it to the man" by blowing him up with a sticky grenade. The issue of net neutrality affects us all, and if you have a chance take a look at web sites like Save the Internet, Center for Digital Democracy, and Public Knowledge.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Amos @ Jun 2nd 2006 5:58PM
That's cool and all but...that video kinda sucked. At least the message is out there, even if it's not actually that funny or interesting...
Josh Warner @ Jun 2nd 2006 6:09PM
Direct download link, (I think), for those who don't like embedded Quicktime videos:
http://files.bungie.org/thisspartanlife/Blog05_S3.mov
Jaded @ Jun 2nd 2006 7:12PM
Are you sure it was this video that changed their minds and not the millions of dollars Microsoft/Google/Yahoo! threw into lobbyists that did the trick?
I mean I'm all for net neutrality, but I think this is clearly a case of one corporate interest winning out over another in Washington. The fact that they were in the moral right was secondary and, mostly, irrelevant.
The Guru @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:46PM
Just shows you how widespread halo is.
Endejas @ Jun 3rd 2006 5:35AM
not one of the best Spartan Life's but shows you people notice and care.
TopaZ @ Jun 3rd 2006 4:31PM
Wow what a one-sided post! Net neutrality is the first organized attempt to regulate the internet on a nationwide scale. Don't believe the hype. Check out this simple flash video that explains it, and make up your own mind. http://dontregulate.org/
Thank goodness for Freenet! The last reliable place to get beast-porn.
Joey Geraci @ Jun 3rd 2006 8:43PM
I just watched that video (the Don'tRegulate one), and while it is well-made, it shows the exact reason why we need net nuetrality legislation. The video says that sites like Google should be forced to pay extra .... because? They don't exactly explain why anybody should be forced to pay extra on top of what they are already paying, other than all the "investment" that the telcos are putting into fiber, which we (both Google, et all, and us, the people) will pay for anyway!!!
It makes no sense, and shows the scary future ahead of us if the telcos get there way.
Moogle @ Jun 4th 2006 1:00PM
*watches dontregulate.org* Yeah, speaking of flash videos made by PR firms paid for by conglomerates... The bullshit-klaxons are deafening.
I don't particularly favor net neutrality because I think the market would slaughter the telcos if they tried their two-tiered crap. The problem there is that the telcos were given their monopolies by government regulation, so their hands are already in this.
The telcos are nothing but greedy. They've oversold their internet connections, and want to hide the fact by 'throttling' google video and youtube. The same thing happened when they oversold voice lines as being unlimited and free, and people started using modems, whose data was neigh-uncompressable. They're just trying to get someone else to pay for the necessary equipment upgrades because they squandered the billions in taxpayer money they were given for fiber lines to everyone's home, which seems to be noticably absent even in major cities.
I think it'd be funny to watch them buy thousands of site-specific throttling routers, walk up to MSYahoogle with a bandwidth bill, and be told "No". The problem is that if any one says, yes, it ligitimizes this childish drivel and forces everyone else to fork out money too, something that few can beat MS at.
So maybe net-neutrality law could prevent the scenario, but since we're dealing with politics, there's a high risk of someone changing the wording to "All your base are belong to Bell South" in the editing office after it's been passed. (Yes, that has happened.)
Ashley @ Jun 5th 2006 11:00AM
WOW, i am glad i will not be the first to point out that this post is very one sided. I work for hands off the internet and i feel that the telco companies are getting a bad wrap. The coalition that has formed is more than just the telecom companies however no one seems to address that fact. Before you form an opinion on either side check out my coalitions website and then form your opinion.
Internet Junkie @ Jun 5th 2006 12:59PM
Some good points being made on both sides of the debate here. I actually work for a company that's been consulting Hands Off the Internet on the anti-Net Neutrality side of things. I've learned a lot about the issue in the past month or so, and what troubles me about the bills the Save the Internet folks are supporting, is they would prohibit the development of a second, high-speed internet tier. I see the devlopment of that second tier as being a huge benefit to making VoIP more reliable, improving online gaming, and making video downloading much more efficient.
Mark Cuban, the owner of the Mavericks and founder of broadcast.com wrote a good blog entry about the benefits of internet tiers a couple months ago:
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488/
Worth a read.
Gasper Delfino @ Jun 6th 2006 12:18AM
[quote]
3. Are you sure it was this video that changed their minds and not the millions of dollars Microsoft/Google/Yahoo! threw into lobbyists that did the trick?
[/quote]
Hmmm. Changed who's minds? No doubt MS, Google and other powerful corporations are for net neutrality, but the net neutrality bill was dropped, so I am not sure what "trick" you are referring to. By far, the bigger lobbying effort is on the part of the telcomms. If this country didn't have such a stupid aversion to regulation, we might occcassionally understand that it is necessary to curb the more greedy excesses of what is erroneously called "the free market." Free like what? Aerospace? Telecommunications? The Gov't already is working hard regulating in favor of corporate greed, why not let it regulate a little in the other direction for once?