The Beastie Boys' Michael "Mike D" Diamond is part of an AT&T investor group seeking to put a net neutrality question on the shareholder ballot: "The shareholder resolution would recommend each company 'publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles,' the letter said. The companies should not discriminate based on the “source, ownership or destination” of data sent over their wireless infrastructure." (via Consumerist)

7 Responses to “Mike D for Net Neutrality”

  1. Guest says:

    Oh sure Mike D, go ahead and do an end run against blind loyalty to the pure profit motive that is ascribed to all shareholders to explain the indecent actions of corporate citizens. You just do that.

    please.

  2. Dan mcgovern says:

    If you want to advocate for Net Neutrality within a company, go for it.  My problem is government-backed Net Neutrality.  I can chose to not use AT&T quite easily.  Expatriation is a much greater burden to avoid a policy I do not like.  

    • Gulliver says:

      Except for the part where telco infrastructure was subsidized by governments federal, state and municipal, operate in many locations as regional monopolies, and use public commons in the form of bandwidth for wireless and rights-of-way for wired.

      I have no problem with pricing by the bandwidth because that represents a real cost of doing business. But when it comes to corporations using routing restrictions as a means to coerce customers into not doing business with their competitors, not accessing sites and services critical or simply unflattering of them, and/or not accessing sites and services unaligned with the political outlook of the telco providers’ current controlling interests, that I have a big effing problem with.

      Moreover, it’s bad business to alienate the customer base even if you are a government-protected monopoly built with pork-barrel expenditures from sweetheart contracts awarded through opaque bidding practices. So, while what I know of Mike D inclines me to believe his motives are as much for freedom of expression as to protect his investments, it’s flat-out wrong to say that net-neutrality runs counter to a pure profit motive. A company that adopts net-neutrality principles now can avoid the PR shit-storm later.

      Also, it’s just plain stupid for anyone to get involved in promoting net-censorship for political ends because once that genie is uncorked, it will be used against you.

  3. Martijn says:

    So he’s part owner of the Ma Bell that’s got the ill communication?

Leave a Reply