Holman W. Jenkins Jr. in the Wall Street Journal defends the telcos in their fight against network neutrality by laying out the case for network neutrality more clearly than most proponents ever do: "Verizon and AT&T have made clear they, too, will reserve a big share of their new pipes for their own value-added services, namely TV, and for other content distributors who are willing to pay for access to it."

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? The Internet is going to become the property of a few rich corporations, or it isn't.

Comments

[jsykes]

Ed:

I've heard this is going to get very confusing in the near future. A member of the general assembly told me off the cuff that they are about to do away with franchise agreements that give cable companies the monopoly on local cable tv services. He said that the telcos were upset that TimeWarner got into the phone service biz on a technicality and this was their response, to provide television services over their infrastructure.

I have just read several articles linked from the "Hands off" ad on your site. As I am digesting that data, it does seem to me that net neutrality is double speak for giving Google, et al, subsidies so they can provide higher density services like video.

It is probably a lot more complicated than I understand, but it seems clear that the internet became what it is because of ready access and free competition. I think it should stay that way.

As one who does not watch television, and enjoys the text and graphic element of the web, I am also apprehensive about the seeming flood of video that is about to enter the web. I would hate to see the web market become video driven, not that there shouldn't be choice, but the beauty of the net, IMHO, is that it has taken us away from the tv and back to reading, writing, and gasp!, thinking for ourselves.