Atrios got the same ad I did. And ran it. As he said, do as you wish, but check out this for some background
The basic argument to end net neutrality centers around whether or not telcos can differentiate between types of information flowing over the networks. Their argument is somehow this gives them more ability to allow the internet to grow.
The problem with that is that there is not an open market in this case–the players are pretty much set and the barriers to entry are huge. Instead, giving telcos the ability to differentiate gives them the power to shape the internet of the future. They can pick and choose what applications and sites to allow or give preferential treatment and thus will be making decisions on what gets promoted and what does not instead of individual consumers.
Net neutrality simply means that the cost of internet service is paid for by end users who then can choose what to do on the internet only limited by their service level. Thus, individual users are allowed to utilize networks up to their level of service promoting true competition over the internet in terms content providers.
Without net neutrality, content providers could enter into agreements to promote their service over other services meaning the system would create barriers of entry to new content providers or simply content providers that don’t make the right agreements with telcos.
Ultimately, if you want to provide the most open access and allow individuals to choose content based upon their wishes and not telco agreements with certain content providers, net neutrality is the best way to go and the cost of such service is paid for by the person with the internet connection.
Consider this an open thread to point out the bogus points in the telco’s ad.
As far as bogus points, what really gets me is the fake amateurish hand-drawn aspect. They’re trying to present themselves as the little guy (um, right, because AT&T and Verizon are dwarfed by big & scary Google?), and this is a cheap attempt to reinforce that lie.
A weird aspect of their strategy is that they seem to be engaging in a full-bore internet offensive, putting this ad on any blog that’ll take it, but the whole tone of the ad is informed by the “bloggers are unhinged angry children” line. Who exactly are they trying to convince?
About the best thing I’ve read on Net Neutrality is the testimony given by Gary R. Bachula, vice President of Internet2 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Bachula puts the question in terms of traffic on a city street:
A few more choice quotes:
And then there’s this word of caution:
As to the ad itself, the only thing it lacks is the ‘A’ in a circle. Can’t wait to see the faux-graffiti they’ve got cooked up for all those Clear Channel billboards.
They talk ‘Che Guevara’ but the Brooks Brother’s suits are a dead give-away.
All I can say is, ?No Pasar?n!