Net Neutrality
Thursday, October 29th, 2009As some of you notice, while I have a pro-American stance, especially with Blood&Metal, I don’t show any preference in any ideology; politically I’m a free thinker. I could go either or, but rarely an extremist view. There are times I even side with Obama, which I list here on this blog.
It was only a matter of time before I find something I differ from Glenn Beck, and I found it in this concept. If you only heard of Net Neutrality from that show, you don’t know all of it.
Net Neutrality has been going on for quite some time, probably since it’s been popularly used by millions like we do now. I’ve been watching this topic for some time now, and I have a politically neutral stance on it. In a nutshell, the ‘Neutrality’ in Net Neutrality has to do with the kind of internet you get from a particular service. Meaning, you get to the same Internet from Comcast as you get from AT&T or from a local ISP. While they have some controls on speed and can even make separate venues between web page download and torrent use, but they cannot restrict parts of the Internet because it’s part of another company’s services. Any use online, be it an IM chat, an E-Mail, a large download, et al, can not be legally blocked under Net Neutrality. This principle promotes standards in file formats and open source systems, as well as innovation and easy competition, things I’ve always supported. Any anyone who knows when there was an IBM system, an Apple system, a Commodore system, an Atari system, and so on and so on and never two of them shall meet.
By now the extremes of the Net Neutrality debate are presenting themselves, and they basically look the same IMHO: Pro-Neutrality zealots claim that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Charter and the other providers want the internet divided into sections that cannot be crossed over; you can get to Comcast’s Internet but not AT&T’s, making the Net into an assortment of Bulletin Board Systems. (AOL vs CompuServe, anyone?) Glenn Beck is telling of a similar circumstance but under control by Barack…or rather, a cabal of extremist liberals who would throttle any kind of information that they don’t agree with. Either side, of course, is an oppressive environment, and probably wouldn’t stand by the general public. Both extremes, of course, are also going at each other throats and endangering the very thing that they are fighting over.
Basically an Internet that is pretty much Neutral, right now. Granted, some companies might want to have a bandwidth cap on torrents and porn so that they’ll have room for professional business transactions and educational research, and more power to them, but they won’t go, “Okay, you reached your daily limit of use on Fox News, here is your daily requirement of Pr0n. Stop being butthurt, fagtard, hurr hurr hurr.” No Internet Provider would remain in business if they do shit like that.
Nor will a political party in control of almost all of Washington stay in office if they do the same. Not even pulling a Chavez and writing off term limits and elections will save them in a country where not everyone has given up their guns.
I believe that there can be an answer that is in the middle of this spectrum, where everyone can be happy with the Net Use. This will require cooler heads, honest debate without ripping into each other, and a middle ground that everyone can settle for. And especially to leave alone the parts of the internet makeup that pretty much has Net Neutrality. If something isn’t broke, do not fuck with it.

