…but it’s going up here, too:
Mostly because of the refrain, which resonates, honestly. I hear it all the time, at least.
Via BlackFive.
Moe Lane
PS: Personally, I don’t have much of an opinion on net neutrality; it seems one of those discussions that everybody involved is very solemn about and, frankly, drones on about interminably. Which is my subtle hint that I really don’t care either way.
Hmmm….I thought that net neutrality was somthing diffrent. I thought was all Internet traffic should be treated equally. I admit could be mistaken though.
Honestly, my eyes glaze over every time somebody tries to explain it to me. On either side.
I can understand that. My definition was gotten from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.
Anytime a politician, in any party, says somthing that makes your eyes glaze over thats a bad thing.
OK, I’m not sure that I buy it, but the idea being floated here is that, at it’s core, net neutrality is about regulating what traffic you can run on your network. The idea is that bandwidth is a scarce commodity that in some sense is publicly owned, so you, as a network owner should be forced to allow network packets from any source to pass through your network at the same priority.
These are precisely the same arguments that were used to promote the original Fairness Doctrine, so I understand where they’re coming from, but I think it’s a pretty large stretch to get from that, to mandating that Liberals and Paultards get their own sections on RedState, which is what he’s implying.
The book he mentions is here and it looks interesting, so I might have to pick it up.
Net Neutrality was one thing.
Then Google started pouring megabucks into redefining it into being a mandated subsidy for its users.
Just watched the video. I don’t see how net neutrality, either in the original form (non-discrimination of Internet packets on the basis of ISP of origin) or in the Google™ form (flat-fee Internet access only, with no bandwidth restrictions) fits in with this concept though.