Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality
GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"
Either way, it's still a crap piece of legislation.
Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.
Now if only they linked this to the front page. Google should leverage its net presence to spread the word to the ignorant masses.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
I am not for breaking up net neutrality, but his statement "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." is sort of hypocritical to what he is fighting for. If he were truely for a free market, then the cable companies could do whatever they wanted with their product. (But then again, local gov'ts have created monopolies for cable/internet providers by only leasing the public right away to certain groups, limiting competition).
Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
I agree, except that I would say its an awful analogy, since my car, your car, a taxi, and a limo all have to obey the same SPEED LIMITS, and that what a tiered internet is all about. Charging more for changing speed limits.
Also, its really amazing to watch how the tiered iternet has gone from the ramblings of a Telco CEO, to being voted on as a law. Its also staggerlingly disturbing that it even happens, much more so that it happens all of the time. It appears that a government of, for and by the people has actually already perished.
Thanks for posting that! I admit I was confused myself until I saw the letter - now I know to be firmly in opposition to this legislation. What convinced me? He had to pull out all the old cliches:
1. This is to keep your prices low. Of course. That's always the first concern of any big business.
2. Your prices are high, and America is lagging behind, because of Clinton. Of course. Everything's Clinton's fault. The fact that Clinton vetoed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Republican-controlled congress over-rode his veto certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility!
3. "the mistruths that liberal groups are spreading". What mistruths, he never actually says. Does or does not this bill specifically state that companies can pick and choose what traffic goes over their lines?
4. "liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services" Again with the liberals! And, of course, if liberals have guaranteed access to the internet, there's no telling what might happen!
Letter: High on rhetoric. Low on information. I give it a C for content, but an A+ for spin.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Riiight... and when your upstream ISP, which is ultimately a large telecom, decides to re-prioritize Google's traffic, or block VOIP because it cuts into their business, what will you do?