I heartily support this kind of advertising. Mainly because being in the ad biz, I want to have the confidence to walk into a client meeting, and PITCH this with a straight face. Well done.

(ahem, baobab )

…the DoJ points out that there have so far been few real violations of the neutrality principle in the US.

In their defense they have done a adequate job ensuring NN so far…but this is only going to last until ISP find a way to circumvent current anti-trust laws. I see no reason for the FCC to wait to formulate regulations that everyone can see are on the horizon.

The second point they have has no rational reason behind it, whatsoever.

The second major argument is that network operators need to massively expand their capacity and consumers will be stuck paying the bill if network neutrality is enacted. “Several studies have noted,” says the DoJ, “that prohibiting broadband providers from charging content providers directly would lead consumers shouldering a disproportionate share of the costs necessary to upgrade network infrastructure.”

The article points out that the internet has massively expanded in the last 15 years without these sorts of charges. What I want to know is, how will failing to regulate the ISPs allow them to obtain this extra revenue without violating the principals of NN? Answer: it won’t. As soon as they are able they are going to start charging fees to any content provider they think has deep enough pockets to cough up the change.

The reasoning in these two arguments is akin to pre-civil-war southern governments saying, “We think slavery is wrong and we will prosecute it when we see it. Of course, we can’t make laws against it because it will impinge upon slave owners ability to make money.” (small aside…I hope it’s been long enough since the war that I can compare it to internet arguments without offending anyone).

Whenever I read news articles like this I get the distinct impression that the people in our government making our laws have no idea what they’re doing.