Cisco Blogs

Shame on you, New York Times!!

January 4, 2007 - 0 Comments

SAN JOSE, CA – Okay, so maybe not a scandal at New York Times, but nearly scandalous…IMHO. Did you see their editorial on net neutrality today? Made me say (out loud): “I used to really like The New York Times.” Okay, so I do read it every day. They clearly haven’t been reading this blog, however…which is disappointing. If they had, they would have not fallen into the hype machine that is net neutrality. In a big business versus big business debate (Google, eBay, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. versus Telcos, cable companies, service providers, etc.), the referee should be the marketplace, not the government. You can call that one Earnhardt’s law. The New York Times editorial today broke Earnhardt’s law by calling for government regulation on the Internet. That’s a pity.Let’s review briefly: 1) The FCC Chairman says he’s already got the authority to punish any actors should they flaunt the FCC’s “connectivity principles.” Translation: There’s not a problem and if there was he could give out any punishment.2) The FTC Chairman says she doesn’t see a problem and has asked net neutrality advocates to show her where the problem is and they haven’t been able to. Translation: There’s not a problem.3) There’s not a problem and by advocating more regulation on the Internet you are dealing with the laws of unintended consequences…which generally follow a Moore’s law type impact when dealing with the Internet.4) There is a law against yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre and there should be a law against calling for “Net Neutrality” in a crowded Internet.What nearly kills me is that the editorial page doesn’t have the same fact-checking rigor that the news pages do. If they did, they just wouldn’t be able to print most of this editorial. It is an “opinion” so that’s all good, but PLEASE, at least get the facts right. Here’s what really boils my blood…they write, “Cable and telephone companies are talking, however, about creating a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane and a slow lane. Companies that pay hefty fees would have their Web pages delivered to Internet users in the current speedy fashion. Companies and individuals that do not would be relegated to the slow lane.” That is just out-and-out misinformation and patently, plainly wrong. Shame on you, New York Times.Here’s their big, messy, stinky piece of opinion on net neutrality. (I had this sentence fact-checked and it came back as is.)

In an effort to keep conversations fresh, Cisco Blogs closes comments after 60 days. Please visit the Cisco Blogs hub page for the latest content.