Great article, Tim. I especially like how he puts in the free market stuff to fight poop with poop, because mark my words: Republicans in Congress are going to be on the side of non-neutrality, and they're going to use rhetoric about how the free market should allow big corporations to have their way.

Sorry Michael, but Knife is such an exquisitely annoying dick that I just can't help insulting him. He has a unique talent for bringing out the worst in me.

Thanks Tim, nice article.

Skimmed through it though. Hmmm excluding Wireless networks, I can see their reasoning (its not right but think ATT's system being overloaded) but...

The marketers have got you locked in with smart phones and GSM Tablets. Little did we know that this would cost us more money (no more unlimited data plans, Service providers testing the waters with data limits etc...

We are victims of our own desires

Good article. But why can't the subject stay frigging Party neutral as well?

Btw, this must be the trash that can't make it to the airwaves... he was talking about in his article.

no politics here. i did complain that the #1 cable "news" programs are all on a network that purchased some sort of immunity from the anti-trust laws, as well as from complying with the FCC laws that govern everyone else. must admit i find it extra aggravating that their political agenda is one i completely disagree with as well as one that is filled with lies, half truths, and a very divisive sleazy approach to presenting their point of view, which shouldn't even be part of this type of programming anyway. it's not the news.
this all seems like a topically appropriate thing to bring up, considering the issues are very similar, and the end results would likely be equally disastrous for our country and profitable for other corporations.

Thanks, Nick.

It's always interesting to see supposedly tolerant people as first/loudest to lose their sh|t when someone simply disagrees with him - and provides actual facts (that can't be refuted), to support their position.

Always good for entertainment, even if it doesn't lead to actual understanding.

Anyway, if we like to hear musicians and songwriters talk about Net Neutrality - and not just hear what WE already think/agree with (right?....) - then, here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html

I was more than a bit surprised when I saw that the Songwriter's Guild of America took this position.

But after speaking with them, it became clear that they are rightly concerned, because many of the "Network Neutrality" principles would prohibit network services from discouraging rampant internet piracy of music and other copyrighted works. Going further, SGA - which represents SMALL SONGWRITERS - individuals (not big corporations or record labels - and not even anyone as big as the guys in "OK Go!") - has said that they WANT to have paid high-speed access, as it may very well be the only way they will be able to provide a "value-add" to their potential music consumers, who otherwise will just go to the cheapest (i.e. free, pirate sites) to get music and other content, if it all gets to them the same.

Think about it...

Has the FCC done a good job of "protecting the public interest" in the areas that they've regulated so far (TV - broadcast and cable, radio, telephone)?

Does ANYONE really think that this system actually furthers the stated ideal that we, as citizens, "own the airwaves," and that the FCC is actually enforcing OUR priorities and protecting the public interest, above all else?

Going further: Is the internet and the way we access it broken right now? Do we need the FCC to fix it?

If say, Exxon could be convinced by Verizon to pay 4x as much as you do (which is NOT happening now, BTW), to have their website or advertisements delivered over the web faster than your site, would it really make your friends or customers go to the Exxon site instead of yours? Would it make YOUR access speed any slower?