Comments on: Wyden’s Wooly Op-Ed http://bennett.com/blog/2006/06/wsjcom-why-we-must-protect-internet-neutrality/ A regular old blog Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:51:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Matt S http://bennett.com/blog/2006/06/wsjcom-why-we-must-protect-internet-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-300597 Matt S Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:05:06 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/06/20/wsjcom-why-we-must-protect-internet-neutrality/#comment-300597 Let's take it one step further. Wyden is already wrong on the facts -- the Cox/Craigslist kerfuffle is unrelated to neutrality. It's unrelated to Cox, really, except for the bad luck of their customers being the victims. Wyden's neutrality amendment (and most others) provides exceptions for security software, such as Authentium, one of the culprits in this case. So even if this were a neutrality issue, and even if Wyden got his way, this case would still be off-topic. We call it FUD in the tech world. When non-techies engage in it, they really expose themselves. Let’s take it one step further. Wyden is already wrong on the facts — the Cox/Craigslist kerfuffle is unrelated to neutrality. It’s unrelated to Cox, really, except for the bad luck of their customers being the victims.

Wyden’s neutrality amendment (and most others) provides exceptions for security software, such as Authentium, one of the culprits in this case. So even if this were a neutrality issue, and even if Wyden got his way, this case would still be off-topic.

We call it FUD in the tech world. When non-techies engage in it, they really expose themselves.

]]>