The inter-networks are too important to be governed by anyone, be they governments or companies. Government implies coercion and regulations, regardless of where it comes from. Not that the regulators won't try, they will be adamant about their "right" to "bring order" over apparent chaos.
My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality.
As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.
"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on governance."
Isn't governance what governments are for? Granted, governments are dysfunctional in many ways, but suggesting governments let others govern seems a bit silly. Who else is going to govern? Should we let corporations sit on committees, next to officials, forgetting that officials were elected, and corporations were not?
There is no guarantee that companies are going to take care of our interests better than governments do. And let's not forget that governments are dysfunctional largely because of the influence that corporations themselves already exert on them.
"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on governance." Isn't governance what governments are for? Granted, governments are dysfunctional in many ways, but suggesting governments let others govern seems a bit silly. Who else is going to govern? Should we let corporations sit on committees, next to officials, forgetting that officials were elected, and corporations were not? There is no guarantee that companies are goi…
You missed the obvious, but none the less ignored, idea (at least in the US we pretend) that governments govern with the consent of the people. Perhaps someone wouldn't mind speaking up?
The inter-networks are too important to be governed by anyone, be they governments or companies. Government implies coercion and regulations, regardless of where it comes from. Not that the regulators won't try, they will be adamant about their "right" to "bring order" over apparent chaos.
My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality. As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.
While ISPs can stiff their customers, they have the option of switching. There is no escaping from legislation, however.
If there is a doctrine of "no regulation/no legislation", corporations would have less of an incentive to mess with the political process (less rent-seeking behavior).
Net neutrality, while ostensibly a pro-consumer piece of legislation, nonetheless opens the door for future regulation (and yes, of censorship) of this space.
Wikileaks highlights how governments' interest can differ from the "citizens of the Internet" (for lack of a better term). Of course governments do act as an important counterweight to keep corporations from abusing their monopolies on internet governments ....
From a governance perspective, who speaks for "Google users"?
My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality. As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.
While ISPs can stiff their customers, they have the option of switching. There is no escaping from legislation, however. If there is a doctrine of "no regulation/no legislation", corporations would have less of an incentive to mess with the political process (less rent-seeking behavior). Net neutrality, while ostensibly a pro-consumer piece of legislation, nonetheless opens the door for future regulation (and yes, of…
>While ISPs can stiff their customers, they have the option of switching.
Not really. I'm on Comcast. I hate Comcast. But my only other option is 384kbps DSL, which is just not good enough any more.
The inter-networks are too important to be governed by anyone, be they governments or companies. Government implies coercion and regulations, regardless of where it comes from. Not that the regulators won't try, they will be adamant about their "right" to "bring order" over apparent chaos.
My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality. As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.
I agree with this sentiment, but have some reservations about government ability to maintain neutrality. As things are, government doesn't understand how the technology works, and are ill equipped to regulate something they know so little about.
I've said it before...I'm fairly confident the government will subsidize a nation-wide 5th generation wireless technology for free internet for all. It'll likely be restricted to just 80/8080 traffic, be throttled, and of course governed and monitored by the government. Since it's completely voluntary to use this network, it breaks no laws since by using it, you will grant them permission to snoop if they so choose.
Call me crazy, but I think it's inevitable...likely to go down 10-15 years from now.
"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on governance." Isn't governance what governments are for? Granted, governments are dysfunctional in many ways, but suggesting governments let others govern seems a bit silly. Who else is going to govern? Should we let corporations sit on committees, next to officials, forgetting that officials were elected, and corporations were not? There is no guarantee that companies are goi…
While I somewhat agree with you, I do think that in the age of the pervasiveness of the Internet, we are moving to a time when sovereign governments have (if only) slightly less relevance than they did before. Sovereigns govern groups of people pretty much by geographic location based on 'citizenry' of areas where they reside/work/were born. With the rise of the Internet we now have new groups of people that have come together not based on geographic locations, but on shared ideas, interests, financial ventures, and what have you. These people can come together from all over the world online and may have more to do with each other than each members respective citizenry. To assume that sovereigns can/will/should act in the interest of this emerging enterprise is fairly far fetched in my opinion. Corporate interests may not defend them either, but still, on the Internet large corporations are almost sovereigns unto themselves. It'd be nice if some of these interest groups could have a/some seat(s) on this commission to help voice the interests of people who continually operate without respect to sovereign borders online.