Net Neutrality

Calabrio

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Net Neutrality Means More Government, Fewer Options for Consumers
Email, news, streaming video, downloading music and movies - not all Internet content is equal and the government should'nt treat it as such
http://reason.org/news/show/net-neutrality-means-more-gove
May 28, 2009

The Internet is a complete success story by almost all accounts. More people have more access to more information and connections with other people than ever before. And all of this happened without government regulation or control. Yet, net neutrality proponents claim the Internet is in danger. They say Congress needs to pass legislation regulating the way Web content flows through networks and government must require cable companies and Internet service providers to treat all customers and content alike. A new Reason Foundation study, however, finds net neutrality would stifle the very innovation that has allowed the Web to grow so quickly and become such a powerful, integral part of our lives.

The Reason study says to get the most out of the Internet we should promote competition, not neutrality. Network neutrality proponents fear that companies will risk alienating their customers by blocking websites, directing traffic only to powerful corporate Websites, and charge prices that drive bloggers and casual Internet users out of the market. But, according to the study, this speculation is unfounded and doesn’t reflect market realities that companies must fight to keep their customers by delivering the services (and Websites) that they want at prices they can afford.

Net neutrality would actually punish companies that seek to improve or optimize their networks or Internet offerings, creating red tape and strangling future advancements.

“Net Neutrality would open the door to unprecedented government intervention in all aspects of the Internet,” said Steven Titch, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the study. “Placing regulations and legal limits on the Internet won’t bring neutrality, it will stagnate the Web’s remarkable growth. The Internet has been doing splendidly without government, why on earth would we want them involved now?”
 
Act now against Net Neutrality
Neil Stevens
October 19,2009

The time is coming that the left is going to begin its drive for Single Payer Internet, and so the time has come for us to fight back. Finland is gradually nationalizing the Internet and declaring use of other people’s Internet hardware a “right,” and the left is cheering. Obama’s “Internet Czar” does not hide the left’s hopes for an end to freedom and markets for Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, President Barack Obama, and the rest of the radical left want to use the Net Neutrality movement as the crisis that gives cover to sweeping big government action, allowing the FCC to pick winners and losers and dictate to private individuals and firms how their private property must be run, putting government bureaucrats in charge of the Internet.

The dangers of the administration’s Net Neutrality plans are not theoretical:

Innovation will suffer, and America will no longer house the leading edge of the Internet technology. Wealth will be redistributed, as cash-rich, massive market valued Internet firms will bully and get a free ride on capital-intensive, smaller market valued telecommunications firms. Government will be deeply entrenched and be a costly burden to anyone who conducts business or pleasure on the Internet. One of the drivers of American economic growth will be crippled in a time when we most need new jobs.

Last, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell warns of Internet censorship to come as Genachowski’s sweeping regulations would provide the basis for an Internet “Fairness Doctrine.” He sees what’s going on at the FCC and knows what it is capable of. Some conservatives have signed onto radical socialist groups like Save the Internet because they were led to believe that telecoms would censor them, when in fact they’ve jumped from the frying pan of big corporations to the fire of big government censorship. One can always get a new ISP in a competitive market if a particular firm becomes anti-Christian, anti-2nd Amendment, or anti-Republican in general. Choosing a new government is less practical.

Therefore, now is the time to act. We must tell the FCC to get its hands off of the Internet, allow competition to rule, and to protect the Internet from any threats to our first amendment rights. Everywhere government has taken an active role as Internet Nanny, such as in Australia or the People’s Republic of China, freedom and prosperity have suffered.

Please, Contact the FCC. Let’s flood the system letting them know our opposition to their plans. Google thinks we’ll believe their Orwellian formulation that an Internet under greater regulation will be more open. We know better. Let’s speak up.
 
Net Neutrality Is a Civil Rights Issue
by Mark Lloyd and Joseph Torres

You might not know it, but there's a crucial debate happening now in Washington about the future of the Internet. Decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in the next few years -- if not sooner -- will determine whether we protect free speech online, close the digital divide, and bring a greater diversity of voices to this transformative medium.

The world of technology is rapidly changing. Pretty soon, you'll get all your media -- TV, phone, radio and the Web -- from the same high-speed Internet connection. The potential democratic, economic, public safety and educational benefits of the Internet are almost limitless. Wiring our nation with a high-speed Internet connection is now a public necessity, just like water, gas or electricity.

Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it. Their plans could have dire consequences for those whose voices are often marginalized by our nation's media system.

For communities of color, the Internet offers a critical opportunity to build a more equitable media system. It provides all Americans with the potential to speak for themselves without having to convince large media conglomerates that their voices are worthy of being heard.

Our Internet freedom is protected by a fundamental principle called "Network Neutrality," which allows the public to access any Web site or any Web application of their choice without discrimination. Net Neutrality has been the guiding principle of the Internet since its inception -- but now it's in danger.

Big phone and cable companies want to decide for you which Web sites and services go fast or slow. While the big corporate sites, especially the ones owned by these companies, get a spot in the fast lane on the information superhighway, everyone else -- small businesses, independent publications, community groups -- will be stuck on the slow road to irrelevance.

These companies spend a lot of money spreading misinformation about their plans. They've said there's no evidence that they're going to interfere with the Internet and that they can trusted to do the right thing. But actions speak louder than words.

In the most glaring example, last October the Associated Press found that cable giant Comcast was crippling a popular way of sharing large files called BitTorrent -- which allows people to quickly download large files such as videos, movies, and music without using a lot of bandwidth.

BitTorrent is perfectly legal. Hollywood studios and music companies use BitTorrent to distribute high quality films, TV shows and music. Even NASA has started using it to send high-resolution photos from outer space. Bit Torrent also provides Internet users with an online version of video-on-demand, allowing them to easily download content of their choosing. It is an ideal application for independent artists and individuals seeking an inexpensive distribution system.

Comcast claims BitTorrent users are hogging the network. But they don't just cut off high-volume users trying to download 20 movies at a time. They block everybody. AP reporters weren't even able to download a copy of the Bible.

Here's what Comcast really doesn't like about BitTorrent: It's competition for their own video business. If we can pick and choose what we want to see for ourselves, we might be less inclined to keep paying Comcast an arm and a leg for all the channels we don't watch.

Comcast is abusing its power. And their actions clearly violate FCC rules that say the Internet can be accessed by users without restrictions. After public interest groups led by Free Press filed a complaint -- and thousands of angry Internet users flooded their in-boxes -- the FCC launched an official investigation.

This investigation may well determine whether the Internet will remain open and free. After claiming they would never discriminate, Comcast is now trying to undermine the guiding principles of Network Neutrality by blocking whatever they want. The other big Internet providers -- like AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner -- filed in support of Comcast's right to discriminate because they want to do the same thing.

Communities of color and other under-represented groups have long fought for a more diverse and inclusive media system. Discrimination and segregation prevented people of color from obtaining radio or TV licenses when these mediums were first created. During the 1970s, cable promised to be a real alternative to TV for communities of color seeking diverse programming; it didn't happen. Yet, many of these very same companies now want to prevent Internet users, including people of color, from accessing diverse online content of their choice.

While our nation must overcome the digital divide so everyone will have high-speed broadband access, the principles of Network Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Americans to speak with their own voices.

The FCC's investigation of Comcast -- and passage of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353), bipartisan legislation now pending in Congress to protect Net Neutrality -- will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet will protect the First Amendment rights of all Internet users and whether people of color will finally have unfettered access to a equitable media system.

Make your voices heard. The stakes couldn't be any higher.

Mark Lloyd is author of Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America.
Joseph Torres is government relations manager of Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frogman said:
And the biggest supporters of Net Neutrality?...

AT&T
Verizon
Comcast
and all the rest of the big internet backbone providers.
Click to expand...
I think you have that one backwards--the big carriers are all against Net Neutrality (primarily because they want to double-charge for traffic). AT&T is the biggest whiner in the bunch, constantly bitching about how Google is getting a "free ride" on their network, despite the fact that Google pays its service providers and AT&T's customers pay for their bandwidth.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on the subject. I detest the thought of more government regulation on the Intarwebz, but there is effectively no competition to keep the service providers honest. Neither option is particularly appealing, as the only question is whether government or private industry will screw it up worse...
 
SoonerLS said:
but there is effectively no competition to keep the service providers honest.
Click to expand...
You just said "providers.
That was plural.
So that means you have competition. If I don't like dial-up, I can get DSL, or FIOS, or Cable, or Satellite.

I had a terrible experience with Verizon, so now I use RR.

Neither option is particularly appealing, as the only question is whether government or private industry will screw it up worse...
Click to expand...
The government will stifle innovation and investment.
And it will give them the power and ability to eventually regulate content.

Not to mention the more ambitious "social justice" goals this government has for the internet, as addressed in the two previous post, written by our diversity marxist czar and the previous radical marxist green jobs czar.
 
Calabrio said:
You just said "providers.
That was plural.
So that means you have competition.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't mean there's competition, it just means that there are multiple providers--there's not a whole lot of overlap in their coverage areas. I, for example, don't have a choice among high-speed providers; I can get DSL from AT&T or I can do without. Yeah, I can get satellite, but it's completely worthless for VPN connections (the main reason I need a high-speed connection at home), so it's not really a consideration.

And note that even if there are multiple providers available, I said there is effectively no competition. Most places that have any choice at all only have a choice between two providers, so when they're both doing the same damn bad things to network traffic, you have NO choice.
Calabrio said:
If I don't like dial-up, I can get DSL, or FIOS, or Cable, or Satellite.
Click to expand...
Must be nice where you live. Most of the country doesn't have that array of choices.
Calabrio said:
The government will stifle innovation and investment.
And it will give them the power and ability to eventually regulate content.
Click to expand...
The carriers want to do it for their own economic benefit; the government only excels at screwing lightbulbs into water faucets. The motives differ, but, in the end, I fear that the results will be the same either way.
 
SoonerLS said:
The carriers want to do it for their own economic benefit; the government only excels at screwing lightbulbs into water faucets. The motives differ, but, in the end, I fear that the results will be the same either way.
Click to expand...

The carriers want to make money.
Some remote areas may have limited coverage until the costs of the technology continue to drop to a point there's an economic incentive to do so.

These things might not happen overnight, but they do happen.

All the while, innovation and competition will motivate the technology to advance and develop. And even people in remote areas will benefit from that technological development and reduction in technology costs.

A few years ago, it wasn't cost effective to run fiber optic lines through all the neighborhoods. But now, you can get Fios all over the country. Not everywhere. But damn near everywhere has cable..... and a decade or so ago, it wasn't cost effective to run cable to remote areas. And before that, it wasn't cost effective to run telephone to those areas.....and before that, it wasn't cost effective to run the telegraph to those areas....

And while I see all kinds of negative economic repercussions and shackles on innovation, I'm even more worried about the political motivations associated with the urgent push for net neutrality.

Why is is to so critically important to get passed this week??
 
Calabrio said:
Why is is to so critically important to get passed this week??
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure it's necessary to get it passed, period, particularly given that the FCC has shown interest in pushing it through its regulatory powers. It has been on the radar for a few years now, so there's certainly no need to rush it through.

Maybe they just want President Obama to have an accomplishment before he formally accepts the Nobel Peace Prize... ;)
 
Calabrio said:
And even people in remote areas will benefit from that technological development and reduction in technology costs.
Click to expand...
I would point out that rural telephone coverage and electrification came about as the results of government programs, not because their purveyors had an economic interest in tapping the market. Market forces don't always work in the favor of the consumers.
 
SoonerLS said:
I would point out that rural telephone coverage and electrification came about as the results of government programs, not because their purveyors had an economic interest in tapping the market. Market forces don't always work in the favor of the consumers.
Click to expand...

You're talking about New Deal policies and that was very limited in it's scope and not terribly successful regarding the accomplishments. And, if I remember right, that was pretty much focused on Appalachia- not the rest of the country.

And despite the money spent "developing" Appalachia, it is still poverty stricken and backward, much like the inner cities- where government money fails to lead to successful communities.
 
shagdrum said:
What circumstances and/or instances lead to market forces not working in favor of the consumer?
Click to expand...
If you're a rural consumer, you're likely not getting cable TV and your high-speed Internet access choices are going to be limited (at best) because there's no market-based incentive for the service providers to provide the services. Hell, if it weren't for the Universal Service Fee, we probably still wouldn't have ubiquitous affordable rural phone service.
 
Calabrio said:
You're talking about New Deal policies and that was very limited in it's scope and not terribly successful regarding the accomplishments.
Click to expand...
I'm also talking about the Rural Electrification Act and the Universal Service Fee, which underwrite (or at least underwrote) rolling out electricity and affordable phone service to rural areas all over the nation.
 
I will also have to say that my knee-jerk reaction is to be against anything AT&T's is for, and I think you'll find that reaction to be not entirely uncommon in this part of the country. Remember that this AT&T is not the traditional AT&T, it's SBC, which doesn't have the most stellar of histories when it comes to doing what's in the best interests of its customers. To wit:
Frosty Troy said:
He [Bob Anthony] personally sponsored and persistently defended the commission's 1992 rate order which resulted in Southwestern Bell making the largest refund and rate reduction in state history.

In an effort to perform his constitutional duty to correct the abuses of regulated utilities and to stop utility lawyers and lobbyists from distributing "walking around money," he wore a wire in a 1989-1994 FBI investigation.

It resulted in felony convictions and prison terms for an ex-chairman and an ex-Commission general counsel who was subsequently working for Bell. Other Bell officials involved exercised their Fifth Amendment privilege. One of those who offered Anthony money was hurriedly transferred to Texas.
...
The United States Supreme Court dismissed a 1994 suit filed by none other than Kenneth W. Starr, lawyer for Southwestern Bell. Starr claimed Anthony was biased because he helped the FBI investigate the bribery scheme that operated at the Corporation Commission.
-- Frosty Troy of The Oklahoma Observer, quoted at http://www.bobanthony.com/articles/news-observer-10aug99.htm
Click to expand...
 
SoonerLS said:
If you're a rural consumer, you're likely not getting cable TV and your high-speed Internet access choices are going to be limited (at best) because there's no market-based incentive for the service providers to provide the services. Hell, if it weren't for the Universal Service Fee, we probably still wouldn't have ubiquitous affordable rural phone service.
Click to expand...

There is no market-based incentive because the government controls that market. Do you have any reason to think there would be no market-based incentive if this market was not government controlled?
 
shagdrum said:
There is no market-based incentive because the government controls that market. Do you have any reason to think there would be no market-based incentive if this market was not government controlled?
Click to expand...
You have that backwards--the government programs exist because there's no market incentive to provide the services. Why would any company go to the expense of pulling cables out into the middle of nowhere to serve a few people if there weren't a USF or a rural electrification program to subsidize it? There's not enough business out there to justify it, at least not at prices that most people are willing to pay.
 
I don't agree with your market incentive argument. I think that government subsidies provided an additional push to do it sooner- but as I mentioned earlier, the falling cost of technology and the potential opportunity would have resulted in the same outcome. In fact, without the government push, an enterprising individual would have had greater motivation to develop a less expensive way to transmit data to those areas.

But there's a more important issue here.
Do you think it's right to take money from me in Florida to provide someone in a rural area of Ohio or Alaska greater telephone service? Should the power of the government be used to force me to subsidized telecommunications in sparsely populated parts of the country?

I don't think so.
 
SoonerLS said:
You have that backwards--the government programs exist because there's no market incentive to provide the services.
Click to expand...

That is the rationale. But that doesn't mean that it is the truth.

However the fact that the government does control that market means that there is no actual incentive for a private business.

Here is an interesting read...
 
SoonerLS said:
I think you have that one backwards--the big carriers are all against Net Neutrality (primarily because they want to double-charge for traffic). AT&T is the biggest whiner in the bunch, constantly bitching about how Google is getting a "free ride" on their network, despite the fact that Google pays its service providers and AT&T's customers pay for their bandwidth.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I did mean against.
 
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775

Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation
Timothy B. Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is pursuing a Ph.D. in computer science at Princeton University
Published on November 12, 2008

An important reason for the Internet's remarkable growth over the last quarter century is the "end-to-end" principle that networks should confine themselves to transmitting generic packets without worrying about their contents. Not only has this made deployment of internet infrastructure cheap and efficient, but it has created fertile ground for entrepreneurship. On a network that respects the end-to-end principle, prior approval from network owners is not needed to launch new applications, services, or content.

In recent years, self-styled "network neutrality" activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
 
Some more reading on the subject:
NetworkWorld: FAQ: What's the FCC vote on net neutrality all about?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-fcc-net-neutrality.html

NetworkWorld: McCain introduces bill to block FCC's net neutrality rules
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-mccain-introduces-bill-to-block.html

You'll have to listen to this one, but there's information about Net Neutrality in the October 21st edition of CNet's Buzz Out Loud podcast:
BOL 1089: Net neutrality double rant
http://www.cnet.com/8301-19709_1-10380308-10.html
Net Neutrality is actually discussed quite frequently in BoL, as it is in multiple tech-oriented podcasts (like Leo Laporte's TWiT podcasts at http://twit.tv/ ), and a metric boatload of columns in the trade press (NetworkWorld is a good source for those.)
 
SoonerLS said:
Some more reading on the subject:
NetworkWorld: FAQ: What's the FCC vote on net neutrality all about?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-fcc-net-neutrality.html

NetworkWorld: McCain introduces bill to block FCC's net neutrality rules
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-mccain-introduces-bill-to-block.html

You'll have to listen to this one, but there's information about Net Neutrality in the October 21st edition of CNet's Buzz Out Loud podcast:
BOL 1089: Net neutrality double rant
http://www.cnet.com/8301-19709_1-10380308-10.html
Net Neutrality is actually discussed quite frequently in BoL, as it is in multiple tech-oriented podcasts (like Leo Laporte's TWiT podcasts at http://twit.tv/ ), and a metric boatload of columns in the trade press (NetworkWorld is a good source for those.)
Click to expand...

thanks.
 
Hmm, Verizon may not be quite as anti-Net Neutrality as they've been saying.

Washington Post: Post Tech New BFFs Verizon, Google agree on net neutrality, except for wireless
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/new_bffs_verizon_google_talk_o.html

For those not up to speed, generally speaking, the service providers have been opposing Net Neutrality, but the content providers have been for it. That's what makes this an odd pairing--Google is a content provider and Verizon is a service provider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 91 (members: 0, guests: 91)
Back
Top