The Fairness Doctrine was the past 1949 to be exact. There is no comparison or foundation for even mentioning it.

The Fairness Doctrine was in effect until 1987. The FCC supported something that Orwellian for nearly 40 years. How is that history not relevant? When have bureaucrats been satisfied with “just a little oversight” of anything? Power corrupts, and power begets more power. I agree with your statement that the web is fragile. But more fragile than the quality of our (ever improving) connections is the quality of the Internet’s freedom. The Internet might be the closest thing to the realization of the American dream. You can do anything, be anybody, create and share instantly, limited only by your imagination. Its relative liberalness isn’t a quirk or a byproduct. It is its headlining feature. I’m extremely wary of anyone who suggests that it should be controlled by government bureaucrats. If you view the Internet through our government’s eyes as evidenced by the last 9 years or so, it is: (a) a way to strike fear in our hearts with overblown national security worries (cyber-crime this, cyber-warfare that), and (b) a way to spy on Americans with little-to-no accountability. Not exactly encouraging.

I’ll continue to advocate for reasonable net neutrality policies at ISPs, and speak out against ISPs with anti-consumer policies. But I do not want the FCC or any other government agency to be given the power to regulate the Internet. The world is full of examples of where that leads. China, Australia, Germany, the UK, and many more examples of hostility to freedom on the there government-regulated Internet.

The bottom line here is that this ruling isn’t a blow to the idea of net neutrality, but merely another step in the process. Congress could give the FCC the powers the court ruled that they do not currently have next week if they wanted to.

All of our time would be better served by writing our Congressional representatives that bashing the court or reading what Mark Jaquith has to say on this subject.

Digital economy bill

What Digital Economy Bill

The Fairness Doctrine was the past 1949 to be exact. There is no comparison or foundation for even mentioning it. Since you mentioned it I had to take a shot of Crown Royal. House rules you know.

What happens when Tier 1 networks start charging your isp more for bandwidth? I mean by your argument they should be able to do this right? You do understand that even at the base the internet is a peer network. So where do propose this ends?

Alternatives are limited.
DSL is a joke and can not be considered broadband. (why do you think they call it high speed?) Do you know AT&T will quash posts to applications like WordPress?
I know this because I live in the country and have had to write code to hard wire headers into blog apps I have written just so AT&T will not quash or truncate upstream traffic. Of course, you knew about that didn’t you?

The web is a fragile thing and should be guarded pampered and looked after. I would think by now with the trouble we have had of late this should be apparent.

I don’t even think this is a question of “too much”. Rather we might be heading towards a future where a certain amount of bandwidth from Source A is okay while the same amount from Source B is “too much”.

I don’t know what kind of deals other people have but there’s already a break on the bandwidth I have through AT&T based on how many bits/sec. I get. In fact I pay a little bit more to get a slightly higher amount.

So what I’m saying, is that this isn’t necessarily about “too much” or “two little” but — and this is the scary part — “from whom”.

Aren’t we paying enough already for cable and internet services?

Personally, I feel lucky to live in the DC area and have several options for broadband and digital TV actively competing with each other. I’m well aware that isn’t the case everywhere else in the US and that’s where people really end up with the short end of the stick.

Score one for the rule of law (as opposed to regulatory scope creep).

@Zak Perhaps DSL is a competitor for cable service? Or satellite? Perhaps a neighborhood wifi cooperative? Any of a hundred creative solutions?

The free market works best. I just hope we can get the government out of it.

You likely have a DSL and a fiber and an RF and a satellite option, if you’re in a major city. These technologies are quickly making local cable monopolies less of an issue. There has been a huge “speed race” in urban markets. Companies are advertising their mbps speeds on billboards, for crying out loud. They’re giving voluntary speed bumps to existing customers. (“Hi, this is your cable company, we just made your Internet connection faster because those Verizon jerks forced our hand!”) This is all being driven by consumer demand for faster connections. This is a good direction for things to be headed. Getting the FCC involved is only going to slow things down.

These monopolistic providers are neither customer centric or fair. Just another abuse in the corpocracy.

The kinds of net bias that the Chicken Littles worry about are not going to come to pass. The whole idea that Verizon would hold YouTube hostage, degrading their videos unless Google coughs up the dough is ridiculous. What would your response be, as a consumer, if Verizon broke YouTube? You wouldn’t be alone. These evil corporations are driven by a desire for profit. That drive gives you incredible power over them. When you get angry and threaten to cancel your service, they listen. The FCC, however, is run by unelected bureaucrats who don’t give a damn about what you want. They answer to the President. They’re playing politics — nothing else.

Do you really want the types of people who brought you the Fairness Doctrine to be in charge of the Internet? Instead of 140 characters on Twitter, you’d only get 120, because you’d have to provide space for a contrasting view:

“Can’t wait to attend An Event Apart. || Suck it Zeldman. Tables and spacer gifs 4eva!”

I want a neutral, or mostly neutral web. What I don’t want is a bunch of government busybodies ruining the last great frontier of freedom and innovation. They’ll tax it. They’ll censor it. They’ll regulate it. They’ll retard it. They’ll restrict its potential. And they’ll do it all with nice sounding things like “Fairness” and “Child Online Protection” and “Consumer Protection” and “Counter-Terror.”

No thank you. I’d rather endure the occasional misbehaving ISP getting bitchslapped by its customers (hi Comcast!) than have the Internet ruined by an eternity of soul-crushing government control.