Steven Begakis and Jamie Silverstein demonstrated a serious lack of integrity and disregard for representing the facts. As individuals, they betrayed only their gaping ignorance.
Net neutrality is not some political “scheme” (nor is it capitalized) but rather the principle that all legal content on the Internet ought be accessible to all Internet users. The Federal Communications Commission’s stance on that principle is positive: It reiterates that all consumers ought be able to access legal content, with legal programs, through any legal service provider.
To misrepresent net neutrality as financial regulation is irresponsible and incorrect. Net neutrality revolves around content. It suggests that your ISP can’t dictate the kind of sites you go to or charge you more money if you want to access a particular kind of content. It means your ISP can’t deny you access to YouTube because you have only paid to look at Wikipedia.
Begakis argues that net neutrality stabs ISPs in the foot when, in fact, it only penalizes ISPs that try to monopolize access. Net neutrality is what prevents a company like Comcast from cutting off its subscribers’ access to Verizon.com, or the Web sites of any other competitor. Begakis twists the truth so immeasurably that he suggests a free society is actually one where corporations decide what kind of information consumers are allowed to have and what kind of consumers are allowed to have it.
But at least Begakis knows he’s twisting the facts. Silverstein doesn’t even know what exactly he’s arguing (or even what century he’s in). Net neutrality is a laissez-faire principle, but only as it applies to content. You can design a Web site or upload a video and anyone in the world with Internet access can access that content. And if your creation “goes viral” — like Twitter or the “Chocolate Rain” video — it can become wildly popular without you paying a cent. Economically, net neutrality has very different consequences for companies, which is why they’re lobbying against it. And regardless of what Silverstein is smoking, free Internet doesn’t have to die. As citizens, we need to inform our representatives that free access to content needs to stay free.
Thank you!
Both of those articles we’re infuriating. Neither Begakis nor Silverstein showed that they even understood what they were talking about, which sadly is part of a pattern with them. They both write swill that toes the ideological line so transparently and simplistically that the articles themselves are pretty much worthless. Begakis regurgitates bullshit he heard on Glenn Beck while Silverstein craps out the Huffington Post Jr. and Daily Kos-lite. I’d much rather read 600-900 words from someone who feels passionately enough about an issue to thoroughly research it and form their own opinion (madness, I know) than anything haphazardly thrown together by these two assfucks.
PS – Rock solid explanation of why net neutrality matters. If any one out there still doesn’t get it, without net neutrality your internet provider, which is probably also your cable company (cox, comcast, time warner, etc), can block access to hulu and youtube because it doesn’t want to give away free tv.