This make me wonder:

This is in response to (apparently) poisonous language from Verizon (and others), saying that “Frontline is a stalking horse for net neutrality and other unprecedented and unjustified mandates.”

— Open Access, by Susan, Susan Crawford blog, Thu 07 Jun 2007 06:25 PM EDT

I wonder why Verizon and the few other members of the duopoly are able to frighten anyone into changing their language?

While they are big companies, the incumbent duopoly companies collectively still represent a small part of the U.S. or world economy, and they are vastly outnumbered by proponents of net neutrality. Plus, it’s worth remembering that it was the duopoly that persuaded the FCC to abrogate net neutrality back in August 2005. And many of the same companies are busy doing things in the POTS space that if applied to the Internet would be quite anti-net neutrality. It would make more sense to say Verizon (and others) are stalking horses for stifling participation and free speech by controling Internet content and distribution. Except draft horses might be a better metaphor.

Just because a statement from the duopoly uses loaded adjectives doesn’t mean it’s right, or popular, or for the common good, or even to the eventual good of the incumbents.

-jsq