New article from Ars Technica.

Lessee, the current debate concerning Net Neutrality is over the necessity of government regulation of telecommunication companies’ actions concerning their customers.

Those who are against the Net Neutrality idea are undoubtedly anti-government, viewing the institution as a thieving, corrupt, violent and cowardly threat to human rights and freedom. Some may not be necessarily supportive of total corporate freedom, but may view government interference as an enabler for corporate excesses.

Those who are supportive of the Net Neutrality may not necessarily share such aforementioned anarchist or libertarian views, but may only show support of government regulation as a means – a messy means – to an end; very rarely will they view the government as a benevolent institution, primarily because of the bodies which serve or exist in the government’s name, including the military. Some, however, may view the anarchist/libertarian opposition to government influence in light of previous opposition to government interference in other, defunct social institutions, such as slavery and cross-racial civil rights.

However, is there a third way between governments and corporations in regards to such a public service as the Internet?

Governments tend to move slowly in regards to the ensurance of human rights for citizens (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for, say, military expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their nationalism and land property. Corporations, as well, tend to be rather socially inept institutions, being slow at the ensurance of human rights or recognition for their customers (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for the sake of, say, technological expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their brand and their intellectual property (i.e., patents).

Now, they both have their benefits. Governments can serve as a final resort for citizens who have been slighted by the actions of corporations, and can serve as founts for corporate standards; corporations, on the other hand, can serve as founts for new technological innovations and approaches, and can provide “gray areas” of techological development that sucessfully subvert the government’s stances.

Ultimately, the natures of both corporations and governments, tendencies which harken to prior centuries rather than forge an insight into the future, leave much to be desired as far as a potential ensurer of freedom, human rights and development on the Internet is concerned.

Maybe there is a need for a third type of institution that is relevant to this service-intensive era in which we’re currently residing. This one shouldn’t be driven by product/patent acquisition (corporation) or land/arms acquisition (goovernment), but by information/service acquisition.