Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real
wiredog writes "The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy is actually a student project. The 'No Net Brutality' campaign idea was one of the four finalists created as an assignment for a two-and-a-half week 'think tank MBA' program. The other finalists were a project promoting free speech in Venezuela, one supporting education reform in Poland, and one dealing with sales tax rates in Washington, DC. ('No Net Brutality' came in third. The Polish reform idea won.)"
Doesn't anyone remember when this first started? We had everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition jumping up and down and saying that the plan by major ISPs and telcos to hijack big web pages unless they were paid not to was flat-out intolerable. We were united.
Then came the lobbyists.
They started with the question, "What are you going to do about it?" And then we got split into market-based solutions (boycotts) and regulation, with neither side seeing eye-to-eye. Next, they tried to redefine "Net Neutrality." When we made it, what we meant by it was, "Don't hijack our web pages!" But they said "Neutrality? They want some kind of Communist equality! We can't use QoS any more or make our networks better!" And now, most people think in terms of their version of "Net Neutrality." They assume it's like the Fairness Doctrine and that it means the government would regulate the content of web pages or some other crap.
Doesn't anyone else remember when this started? Before the lobbyists split this into a conservative/liberal issue? Back when we all agreed that having ISPs hijack popular websites unless bribed not to was a terrible thing?
Because I do. And I feel like the only one.
The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.