One of the biggest problems I see with many political activists and lobby groups is that in order to get their point across they are excessively critical of the 'opposing' argument and routinely exaggerate issue after issue in an (often misguided) attempt to make their point of view more attractive1. As with most emerging political debates the debate surrounding the concept of Network Neutrality currently has the two 'sides' sprouting more and more diametrically opposed arguments. I was very pleased today to find (via VoIP News) a paper published by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) which presents a balanced and well thought out discussion of Network Neutrality issues(PDF).
If you're interested in the Network Neutrality debate (and if you value the internet in at all you should be) it's well worth reading their paper. I know it's a little long for many of you short attention spanned internet freaks out there (16 pages), but it's worth it, trust me.
It's difficult for me to form an opinion on the suggestions made by the authors of the paper because I don't know enough about the FCC, its ideologies, and consumer protection record. Their whole suggested course of action hinges entirely (as they freely admit) on the FCC, its policy position and how willing and able it is to enforce its policies in this 'new' area of regulatory authority.
- I see this kind of activism most regularly practiced by environmental groups. Groups like Greenpeace regularly step beyond what should be considered a reasoned argument and produce all kinds of material which more closely resembles propaganda. [↩]