Letters to the Editor
-
So crazy it just might work
See fredblotnik's post "Follow the Money." AT&T has made it clear for years that it wants to institute a multi-tiered internet so that it can charge both uploaders and downloaders: it wants its customers to pay for their internet service, of course, but it also wants Google and Amazon to pay to have their traffic be delivered in the fast lane. This is what the net neutrality debate is all about. As another poster pointed out, "piracy" is just the rhetoric that they will use to get large content providers on board.
My immediate concern, though, is Manjoo's Pollyanna-ish belief that this is akin to AT&T's suicide. If we take refuge in the belief that customers would never stand for this, and that there would be a major uprising to prevent it, that is a dangerously naive complacency. Most citizens have few choices for their high-speed internet provider (we don't all live in SF, Salon!), and between AT&T's campaign contributions and anti-piracy rhetoric, the company can expect little opposition in Congress or the FCC. Just look at how easily they are getting retroactive immunity, a blatantly corrupt provision that has only failed to pass so far because of one brave senator.
For all of you counting on "the boys in Legal" to prevent this, a more likely scenario is that AT&T gets an immunity provision through Congress allowing it to filter content without liability--the worst of all possible worlds.
Do NOT assume that just because AT&T's plan is insane means they won't pull it off.