Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell let loose his thoughts on net neutrality.
Mr. Powell’s statements quoted from the article –
“The Silicon Valley netroot community, a very powerful community, a very important constituency to this administration, is strongly, almost religiously committed to this issue in a very coordinated way and that provides a lot of power and impetus to keep this issue moving and to push the more extreme versions of net neutrality,” Powell said. He later joked the Internet was “nirvana.”
Mr. Powell is a member of the Chicago School.
When he was appointed to the FCC in the 1990’s, he is notorious for his response to a question about the “digital divide.”
“I think there is a Mercedes divide. I would like to have one, but I can’t afford one.”
In other words, internet access is a luxury that you pay for, not a right you need to function effectively as a citizen, a student or a worker.
He was for internet neutrality when it served his purposes. But now he has discovered the nearly infinite amount of money, can be made from scrapping it, he wants it gone.
Could he have some interest in the demist of the net neutrality? Well, he is on the board of Cisco. The company could make enormous sums from the end of net neutrality.
It does seem that Cisco is, well, a little ruthless in its competitive techniques.
Now, about that “nirvana” thing. The Chicago School is passionate about turning every conceivable resource into a private purchasable good. That includes water!
You see, in his mind, if you can divide it up and make money with it, that’s the logical and intelligent thing to do. If you want to maintain equal access you’re equivalent to a religious loon seeking “nirvana.”
Equal access is democratic and people centered. There is no such thing in his world. It’s like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as far as he is concerned.
And if you don’t see it his way, you’re just too stupid to grasp reality.
Now, the reality in his world is this, everything from politics to health care to love follows certain economic rules. These rules are dictated by nature. There is no dispute possible with their logic or power. The most effective way for a society to function is my maximizing choice, and if that choice is determined best by concentrations of economic power, than so be it.
See, the strange world we inhabit is not that world and therefore we are the mental peons he has so sadly to deal with day by day.
I feel sorry for him.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
At the risk of sounding crude, that guy is a douche bag.
Net neutrality is an interesting dilemma. On one hand, I can understand the want to keep the internet neutral so as to preserve the spirit of an equal exchange of information and ideas. On the other hand, I can also understand that ISPs own their servers. They are supplying a demand and only a fool would supply a demand for free in a market economy.
Perhaps the market can solve the problem for us. If we give away net neutrality and allow ISPs to speed up or slow down particular information, then it seems that there will be a new demand for a neutral internet. Because of this, new ISPs will crop up and offer the internet unabridged. If these new entrepreneurs do it right and offer the neutral internet for the same price as the other guys, then I see no reason why it wouldn’t eventually force the big ISPs to move the internet back to neutral in order to stay in business.
This ideal, of course, would require that every interested party involved actually let the consumers choose. That is the chief assumption here and I don’t feel too good about that happening.
LikeLike