The No-Brainer that Roared
04
October
I can appreciate the recent buzz surrounding the newly-launched satirical website WeOwnTheInternet.org, which smartly pokes fun at the corporatocracy’s indefensible position on Network Neutrality. Ann Handley points out that humor can rouse interest in an otherwise drab topic.
But I sometimes worry about why this satirical website exists in the first place. To any average citizen that understands the facts surrounding the net neutrality issue, IT IS AN ABSOLUTE NO-BRAINER. So why, oh why do we need a brilliantly-clever satirical website wrapped in a stellar viral campaign dedicated to THIS ISSUE?
To me it is a sign of the following:
- Many Americans generally are not capable of comprehending even the basic concept of “competition = good,” “monopoly = bad.” At the very least, it seems that a little bit of techno jargon like “net neutrality” is all the roadblock you need to make Americans throw up our hands in utter confusion.
- The major corporate media outlets (all four of them) have done a masterful job of confusing the issues surrounding net neutrality. The only “progressive” messages that have a chance at getting through loud and clear to the masses must be extremely clever and must be delivered virally outside of the mainstream channels.
- Most Americans have no idea that net neutrality laws affect each and every one of us. We all have a stake in this. We all stand to lose.
Suggested Reading
1. Ann Handley | October 5th, 2006 at 6:26 am
You’re right, Tony — the issue itself *is* a no-brainer. But it seems that most people aren’t focusing on the issue — they get bogged down in the “geek” around it — and I can’t say I blame them. While some sites/discssions/blogs have done a good job of laying out the fundamentals, others haven’t. Look at the opening line of the wikipedia entry, for example:
“The phrase Network Neutrality describes networks that don’t favor some destinations over others, or classes of application (for example the World Wide Web) over others (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).”
then
“One interpretation claims that the Internet is not neutral ‘as among all applications’ if it favors one application over another, such as real-time communication over file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic.”
Clear as mud to average Americans. In my mind, thank god for Richard Merryweather!
2. HandsOff | October 5th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Working with the Hands Off the Internet campaign, we’ve seen viral campaigns similar to We Own The Net, also with plenty of flash and very little substance. The high production values obscure the fact that the fundamental argument for net neutrality regulations rests on scare tactics and highly speculative scenarios, not actual evidence. In fact, Amy Gahran points out that most of the campaign has consisted of jokey material like this. Consider the possibility that those promoting NN need to use these tactics because they don’t have a strong case to make.
Even Google’s chief evangelist, Vint Cerf, said himself, “If the legislators … insist on neutrality, we will be happy. If they do not put it in, we will be less happy but then we will have to wait and see whether or not there actually is any abuse.”
The funny thing is, We Own The Internet attempts to frame the net neutrality debate as consumers versus big corporations, although Sir Tim Berners-Lee –- who feels similarly about the issue — recently described the debate as a “clash of corporate cultures.” We tend to disagree with Mr. Lee, but at least he isn’t being disingenuous.
3. Tony Valle | October 5th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Hands,
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that Cerf’s quote is disingenuous? Are you hinting that NN advocates might be full of hot air?
If you could explain a little further where you are coming from, I’d appreciate it. Thanks for the post and I look forward to further info!
Tony
4. HandsOff | October 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Tony,
Cerf’s quote is anything but disingenuous—it’s actually surprisingly candid coming from him. But by saying what he did, Cerf is admitting that no real precedent exists that would necessitate Congressional action on the issue of net neutrality. Were any issue to arise, the FCC and FTC are already in positions to handle any malfeasance on the part of the telcos. As it is, net neutrality advocates are simply inventing a problem to fit their preconceived solution, and that is disingenuous.
Thanks for supporting open dialog!
5. Tony Valle | October 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Hands,
I’m not so sure I agree that “no precedent exists that would necessitate…action.” These mentions of wrongdoing are at least worth serious consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Disputed_Claims_of_Discriminatory_Practices_in_the_US_and_Elsewhere
Also, Cerf is representing Google in his comments. Google is a multinational corporation worth billions. That’s not much of a representative quote in my opinion. If the internet moves to a “pay for play” service, Google will surely make do and move on.
My comments are made with the other 99.9% of us in mind: average citizens, small business owners, etc. I personally don’t have any faith that I can afford to have a “wait and see” attitude toward this and then expect that I have a snowball’s chance of changing it back to neutral if I don’t like it.
I grew up in Chicago, IL. The toll roads, originally promised to be operable for something like a month, are still standing some 25 years later. I’m sure you get my point.
Tony