A video about “net neutrality” that apparently can only be viewed using some proprietary and non-ubiquitous piece of software! The AVI file format may have been “invented” in Redmond, but it’s also one of the most open and ubiquitous formats in the world – the mp3 of video. So… where is the link?

What, they can’t even figure out how to use YouTube?

>> Correct the video! Please. I�d be interested to see it. And I�d link to it. Now we are free

Andy,

>> For me, to equate the network of storage & transportation within the physical world to that of the virtual world seems to undermine the significance and value of the Internet.

If you understand the role common carriage plays in other transport infrastructures, and therefore the role that other transport infrastructures play in the overall economy, and therefore the structure of the overall economy, that might provide a different perspective from which to consider this issue.

More films of this type are critical to help focus the attention and the passion of the public on what might otherwise seem an arcane or irrelevant issue. The impact of the Internet on participatory democracy and on individual and collaborative creativity cannot be emphasized enough.

Forgive me but is the whole point of the argument not that the Internet represents a virtual world where none of the physical limitations of time, space and matter exist (well… not nearly to the same extent)? For me, to equate the network of storage & transportation within the physical world to that of the virtual world seems to undermine the significance and value of the Internet.

With regards to the issue of QoS; I agree that it is perhaps a slightly clumsy way to summarise the issue. My understanding is that the difference between the best and worst QoS is not one of capability in that they should both be able to ‘do the same things’; but one of convenience whereby paying for a better QoS would simply allow you to do those things faster for instance.

Finally, I would also point out that ‘Human Labotomy’ seems to be a work in progress which, like any argument, must be given time to evolve. I believe it is a great start and that the 2008 feature-length version will offer a far more robust and succinct case – hopefully without any weeping 15 year-olds!!!

Cheers… Andy McDonald (Glasgow, Scotland)

The video invites everyone “to do anything they would like with the above edit or any future edits you make.” Don’t write a “detailed critique.” Correct the video! Please. I’d be interested to see it. And I’d link to it.

I happen to believe in common sense common carriage requirements, just like every other transport infrastructure, and I happen to also believe that structural separation is the ultimate answer to the problem, just like it is in every other form of transport infrastructure (federal express does not compete with most of its customers), but there are an enormous number of inaccuracies in this video, and it is not the correct basis for debate. As to getting people emotionally involved, the pieces of the video that dealt with the issue of cost of information spread and the benefits of a citizen press would have been sufficient IMHO. If I get time I will write up a detailed critique and post a link to it.

And the fundamentals are not correct. Yes they have no natural right to control it. They also have no natural obligation to provide guaranteed bandwidth – that also has never been a part of the legacy of the Internet (even the portions that were legal acquired by Verizon such as UUNET – ehh one of the builders of the Internet). Property rights are an important and fundamental part of our civilization. If you want certain private sector entities to do something, make a deal with them, keep the committments of the deal (stable regulatory interpretation and enforcement), or create clear and simple legislation and keep it out of the hands of unaccoutable (to the electorate) government agencies and tell the supreme court to stop passing the buck on interpreting legislation.

While I agree that the fifteen year old boy sobbing in the video was a little over the top, I have to disagree with your comment. This film isn’t intended to convince law makers, it’s trying to get people riled up enough to get involved. You have to show passion, emotion, and anger to get people motivated, otherwise they have a tendency to sit passively by and let things happen to them (myself included). The most reasoned arguments have a tendency to fall flat.

The core argument and facts are there. The Internet was not designed by AT&T and they have no “Natural Right” to control it. Once it became obvious that the Internet could be monetized, the bandwidth provides started pushing for industry deregulation . They have previously received a massive payout to built out the Internet, but have failed to do so (showing that they are more interested in short-term profit than long-term progress. No benevolent dictators there!). Now they are arguing that they should be allowed to charge fees which effectively entrench the current market leaders. Under this system we would never have had a Google because they couldn’t have afforded the bandwidth to effectively compete with Yahoo despite offering a superior service.

I think the video does an excellent job of conveying both good information as well as a passioned plea for support.

When the Internet was born, the transport layer separated it from the existing PSTN so that wild, creative, unstable innovation could occur without impacting the critical services the country was dependent on – private sector and public sector (the regulations formed under the Computer Inquiries also were critical in enabling this). The argument could equally be made, why would we want to change? Bandwidth partitioning was as essential to the nurturing of the Internet as to whatever comes next. The challenge is to do it in such a way that we protect the democratic and liberal (classic definition) potential of the Internet.