The Orlando Sentinel has a good article today about net neutrality, in which it lays out both sides of the argument in plain terms, and also gets commentary from both people on the inside of the issue and the average person on the street.
From the Snowe-Dorgan faction fighting for net neutrality in the Senate:
Net-neutrality backers raise concerns that consumers would wind up paying the toll. They also fear network operators would have too much control over content and power to block access to sites.
"Losing neutrality allows the phone and cable companies to be the gatekeeper, determine what information you can access and at what speed," said Dawn Holian, director of media research for Common Cause, a consumer-advocacy group.
Go Dawn! And what does the other side have to say?
"Any company that tried to block content would be crazy, and their shareholders would have profound concerns," said Mike McCurry, a lobbyist representing the coalition that includes AT&T, BellSouth and other network operators.
Yes, it's that Mike McCurry, and yes, he is ignoring the fact that "crazy" or not, companies have already shown their tendency to err on the side of censorship when it best suits their interests.
University of Central Florida student Cornelius Mambolea from Kenya, puts it in words that go straight to the heart of why Common Cause and others are fighting to protect internet neutrality:
"We want the freedom to express ourselves," he said.
"If someone thinks a message isn't what the public should be viewing, and subject to censorship, that isn't right. We should have the right to express our opinions."
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
