Corn growers oppose Net Neutrality

[BigV]

The question is "Why?" I don't know any corn growers, so I can't ask directly. I read the story, and it seems to suggest the coalition is a bit ... artificial.

Your thoughts?

In the technology-meets-politics world, Net neutrality has been the hottest political conflict pitting businesses against each other in the last few years (the conflagration really started with the 2005 Madison River case). After Google emerged as a leader of the pro-Net neutrality forces, it was inevitable that its adversaries would employ the political process to trip it up in unrelated business dealings (c.f. Rep. Joe Barton).

and

LMG appears to be unusually tight-lipped about itself and what it does: its Web site requires a password even to click on the "contact LMG" link. A non-password protected version of the site saved by Archive.org offers to sell the ability to form "robust coalitions (that) can change minds--in the media, among lawmakers." Another page says "it is our longstanding policy not to disclose our client list."

[classicman]

I think its very strange - strange indeed - in a Big brother-ish conspiracy theory sorta way.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The corn growers hired Lmg to look after their interests in Washington. Looks to me like LMG is namedropping other clients, to support the case for their cable clients.

If your lawyer sent you a letter to sign, telling you it was in your best interest, you'd probably sign it even if you didn't completely understand it's implications. That's why the corn growers, and we, hire experts.

[BigV]

So the larger question of the importance of Net Neutrality... what are you thougts, dwellars?

Should ISPs such as Comcast be permitted to inspect what kind of traffic flows to and from your home and prioritize different aspects of that traffic according to its own desires? Or should all your traffic be treated equally?

You want a real world example? Ok. There have been complaints that Comcast has degraded or even blocked traffic for VOIP service to and from Vonage. Vonage, an internet phone company, offers a service that competes with a similar service from Comcast.

Then there's the topic of P2P traffic. Comcast (again) has been found to have degraded the traffic between P2P systems. Worse, they lied about doing so, and worse still, were caught in that lie. Cite. Very good article, recommended.

I especially like the introduction of the new term "protocol agnostic" as an alternative to the incendiary "neutral". Who knew neutral, wasn't?!

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If your lawyer sent you a letter to sign, telling you it was in your best interest, you'd probably sign it even if you didn't completely understand it's implications.

The hell I would.

V? You think "agnostic" isn't an incendiary term? Pfft.

I'm in favor of network neutrality. The kind of packet-shaping they're talking about is onlya couple steps removed from censorship, and that's not a positoin the ISPs want to be in (whether they know it or not).

Please note, though, that I make a distinction between this kind of activity on the part of the ISP, and the same things done by companies and individuals on their own networks.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

snip--

V? You think "agnostic" isn't an incendiary term? Pfft.

Not my observation, from the article.

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

I'm in favor of network neutrality. The kind of packet-shaping they're talking about is onlya couple steps removed from censorship, and that's not a positoin the ISPs want to be in (whether they know it or not).

Please note, though, that I make a distinction between this kind of activity on the part of the ISP, and the same things done by companies and individuals on their own networks.

I agree on all points. Net neutrality, protocol agnosticism, whatever you want to call it, I'm *strongly* in favor of that on the open internet.

I also agree with your exception noted for private networks.