After net neutrality, will we need “Google neutrality?”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10…

After net neutrality, will we need “Google neutrality?”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10…

I agree that an important conversation on how the future of the Internet should be built out and what it looks like is critical. But my frustration is first the initial blog post starts with an attack on an important (yes flawed) organization that does research and advocacy for people of color.

And it purports to ask questions on how we have openness and universal access, even as all the academic research shows that openness leads to more access.

It does this all in a post that mimics the language used by telecommunication lobbyists.

ICANN, Google preferential treatment, how we get access that is affordable are all important questions. They don't however fall into the questions around Network Neutrality.

The do fall into the FCC's development of a National Broadband Plan that I encourage everyone, but especially People of Color to get involved in.

http://broadband.gov/workshops.html

MyBlack, very good point, “two wrongs do not make a right.” My fear with ANY policy decision is that those whose voices are not fully mobilized get ignored. On this issue in particular, we can't just be about pointing the blame at one party over another. I think we need to holistically look at the various bad practices that can negatively impact consumers and Internet users, and make adjustments accordingly. The blame game rarely works, and estimations about who the 'bad actor' may be are often ill-conceived, particularly in business-related transactions.

Jordan, I think we really do owe it to ourselves and our country to get this thing right, and it requires a confluence of voices representing a variety of perspectives. More importantly, however, we have to be able to respect disparate voices enough to consider that their arguments may actually have merit. To totally disregard as false a different opinion without considering our views through an alternative lens only lends to the further perpetuation of ideologies of ignorance.

That is the first of many things you get wrong. Maybe you should take that digital literacy class.

Second the idea that openness and providing more access are in opposition isn't just a false dichotomy but false based on ALL the research.

The research shows that when the Internet is as open as it is now there is actually MORE investment by ISP's to under-served communities.
http://www.freepress.net/files/Finding_the_Bott…

Finally why should people of color have access to an Internet that only provides the sites pre-approved by COMCAST or AT&T?

Is that what you want for our community access to an Internet controlled by Internet Service Providers while wealthier communities have access to the whole Internet?

You are literally proposing separate and unequal as a strategy for our community.

I am sad that you are willing to defend corporations with this line of clearly false reasoning, while exploiting our economic struggle.

Please do some research before posting something this horribly uninformed and harmful.

In fact due to common carriage rules the Internet has existed as a “neutral” network for a much longer time than it has operated without those protections.

Dial up happened over the phone lines which already had clear non-discrimination pro competition rules. Where we got in trouble was with the cable delivery of DSL and Broadband. The telecoms spend a lot of money to try to remove those rules from these new services so they didn't have to compete and they were almost completely successful.

It's very interesting when you look at how we compare with the rest of the world, you can plot our loss of broadband competitiveness to the removal of net neutrality type protections through the legal kerfuffle’s that lead up to the Brand X case.

So the idea that these rules and regulations are “new” is wrong. The idea also that the Internet is somehow “unregulated” right now is also wrong. Right now the Internet is very regulated but it is regulated to prevent competition and to protect the incumbents. The reason why regulations need to be changed to protect the public is because the country that created the network is now a mid level performer and dropping in all measures of second-generation competitiveness. Doubling down on the strategy that is leading us to fail is logical only to those who financially benefit from control of a failing network.
Hmmm who would that be?