I agree to Idea Net Neutrality is good for our economy
Voting Disabled

208 votes

I disagree to Idea Net Neutrality is good for our economy

Rank11

Idea#45

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & Innovation »

Net Neutrality is good for our economy

If large ISP and web providers get their way on this, they can effectively "lock out" internet start-ups, nonprofits, and those unable to pay for premium bandwidth. Why should we hand over the internet, which was developed with public money, over to large corporations who will only inflate the costs to consumers in the same way wireless companies nickle and dime us to death with access fees? Allowing ISPs to stifle small internet businesses is a sure way to make sure Americans keep losing their jobs and that web innovation will move overseas.

Submitted by 5 years ago

Comments (42)

  1. Net Neutrality is bad for the economy.

    The best for the economy is freedom and that means a free market. Market forces can work in improving the quality and quantity of services. For some reason, some people skip honest market methods and go straight to demanding rules on everybody.

    Those core laws are all that are needed: laws against breach of contract, against fraud, against theft and so on. We don't need a lot of regulations.

    What can the feds do? They can require "neutrality" on all government pipes. They can remove incentives for cronyism monopolies.

    Remember, freedom is protected. Neutrality is forced on people.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Net Neutrality is very bad for the economy.

    America is primarily employed by small businesses. If you remove their ability to compete on the web than America will suffer.

    Conservatives are all for Equity. Everyone gets a chance to participate in the market. Removing the principles that are currently in place will allow ISPs to play favorites with content. This removes the principles of an open market of competition.

    Net Neutrality is the only way to keep capitalism alive. These principles are in place now. If you like the way your internet works now you like Net Neutrality. These corporations will try to confuse this issue about being about opening up markets. It Isn't they already enjoy a monopoly. There is no competition in the telecommunications industry. It is not an exaggeration these telecoms have a monopoly. There is no competition in their market.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. Net Neutrality is GOOD for the economy. (typo)

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. vilgalys Idea Submitter

    This is not an issue of "market forces" it is an issue of public policy when it comes to internet bandwidth. In my area there is a choice between two companies for high-speed internet. Either Time Warner for cable, or Verizon for DSL. Both of these companies have histories showing mixed signals as far as their commitment to net neutrality. A choice between two monopolies is not a "free market" in any sense at all.

    At that, the issue of net neutrality specifically is one of *reducing* regulation in that these ISPs and access providers are attempting to regulate bandwidth according to their own rules, as opposed to simply providing bandwidth regardless of its content.

    An example might be Time Warner deciding to pipe through traffic from its own media empire at a faster speed than its competitors. This would not be a "market force" in any sense, it would an anti-competitive step taken by a company we've allowed a monopoly over our local cable lines, the installation of which has been subsidized by public money. This an abuse that we, as consumers should not allow and so this "regulation" which is really just a re-statement of current policies, is necessary to keep our internet access as-is.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. dbg

    Unfortunately, once net neutrality gets imposed there won't be any ISPs left. No telecom provider is going to invest in backbone upkeep if all revenue models are stripped away. You'll have your free internet and it will slowly grind to a halt.

    Or maybe someone could explain who's going to support these neutered networks where everybody gets everything for free. (..anybody, Bueller, anybody...)

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. So Americans will stop using broadband once net neutrality rules are passed?

    The answer is no we have the fasting growing broadband market in the America's. Also, those TV stations that got converted to HD now have a free spectrum for companies to pick up and offer services. Providers can milk money out of us so they will continue but there is a difference from making a profit and greed at the expense of the American people.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. How is this going to be paid for?

    http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. vilgalys Idea Submitter

    dbg, what are you talking about? Net Neutrality has nothing to do with giving everyone "free internet". This is about setting a standard for internet service, in fact it's about keeping the same standard for service that we've enjoyed since the internet's creation.

    If you really really like getting charged a lot of extra fees for everything you currently get for a flat-rate monthly bill, then maybe net neutrality isn't for you.

    At that, and let me press this issue just for kicks, our internet is more expensive and slower than it is in other first-world countries. Simply put, this gives them a huge advantage in a global market. Countries which put in place faster, cheaper broadband are going to have more competitive companies, better educated workers, and more tech-savvy consumers. Allowing our telecoms to charge us more money isn't going to do anything to improve that situation.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. dbg

    I wish that were the only focus. But the result will be to remove any possible revenue models for the backbone providers. Absent that, they will abandon the business. The govt will have to step in with the other foot (like those other countries you talk about) and nationalize the backbone. Then you'll see some real "special interest" perversions.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. dbg

    and for Tony- you prove my point exactly. I never said anyone would stop USING the Internet. I predict that the backbone vendors who built and support the Internet will stop doing so. Demand is high because everything currently works well. Remove the opportunity for competitive business models and those vendors will will abandon supporting it.

    Please, someone, show me who will maintain and expand a neutered Internet. (my suspicions: govt nationalization, more taxes, and some really serious special-interest-perversions. You thought big business was planning to screw you; wait till the govt controls everything...)

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. Dar,

    I'm sorry to tell you this but your wrong about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is essential -- by the way we've had Net Neutrality before - it is the principle of an open democratic Internet where anyone can go online and connect freely with others (it is a principle to prevent ISPs from blocking online access to certain services) we had Net Neutrality prior to 2005 when the Bush FCC made the error of stripping the Internet of this basic protection for the Internet. Net Neutrality makes sure you can connect to everyone else on the Internet -- now the Obama FCC is making the right choice in restoring this principle to protect this openness. In fact, their taking Net Neutrality a step further than it previously existed making it apply to wireless networks and wireless devices. As it should be when you on the web whether through wireline or wireless connections we should have the same openness on the Internet.

    We face a challenge from ISPs though that want to preserve and extend their legacy of closed/proprietary technology systems like cable TV to the Internet -- thanks to the Internet's openness we have been able to reclaim the media for the public. Whether Republican or Democrat all Americans should support a democratic open Internet. This is not about govt control of Internet but preventing corporations from slowing down or blocking our Internet.

    An open Internet is a great town square for the public where free speech is safe a closed Internet without Net Neutrality where big cable and phone companies restrict what we can do online could censor free speech. Big ISPs decide what's on, how much it costs, and how fast it downloads. That is not the type of Internet I signed up for or want. I want equal Internet -- everyone should have equal access to the Internet.

    Today Internet can be used for watching television, placing phone calls (think Skype, and Vonage), reading news and information, communicating via email and instant messaging all freely. Without Net Neutrality cable companies would like to stop their Internet customers from downloading video off the web from even legal competing services like Apple's iTunes Store or accessing YouTube etc. Cable companies may privilege their own TV service offerings over rival online offerings. Instead of improving their infrastructure, expanding bandwidth, and speeding up our connections they want to slowdown our connections and restrict our Internet usage.

    We have always had Net Neutrality -- the debate to save it or kill it started after the Bush FCC in 2005 made the regrettable mistake of gutting Net Neutrality protections that existed at the time for an open Internet. Now we're fighting to get those protections back and seem to be succeeding.

    Before former President Bush entered office we had 30 + years (under both Republican and Democratic U.S. Presidents) of pro competition, pro innovation rules to keep the Internet open. AT&T (Ma Bell) was forced to be broken up for a reason to create competition in the broadband Internet access market and policies mandating that competition remain to prevent mega mergers like we've seen since former President Bush came to office in 2001 were in effect. When Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th worldwide in terms of broadband Internet penetration -- thanks to deregulation, mega-mergers etc we have less competition, consumer choices and innovation now -- also the U.S. has slipped way behind other countries in adopting broadband Internet and have a digital divide in this country where usually urban rich areas have Internet and poor rural areas lack Internet access. Even when people in rural areas want Internet they'll often find there is no provider in their area for high speed Internet or they provide sub par service and there are no other choices for better service.

    If we close the digital divide we can create millions of new clean high tech jobs for the future that will help the economy especially now given the high unemployment we have. Net Neutrality is necessary for a democratic open Internet.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. I do not see the supporting arguments to support the suposition that the current system allows large ISP to stop the creation of new smaller ones.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. The FCC Chairman's statements are very cleverly worded to sound positive, but really are just additional rules that could be used to control the Internet. How?

    Firstly, tell me how is Net Neutrality going to increase competition or break the monopoly of AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon? Is the government going to force service provider companies to be created? Is the government going to fund service provider companies that compete with the big companies? They could tax the big providers more than the small, but does that mean that under-served areas will get more bandwidth or will those small companies go to downtown areas and use their tax breaks to provide service to companies?

    The government has never meddled with business in a constructive way. You might say: what about the breakup of AT&T's telephone monopoly. Well, there were already laws in place to fight the monopoly, but AT&T was exempt because they were a utility. All the government did was stop meddling and simply allowed existing laws to be enforced.

    I say we need LESS government intervention and the Internet is best without government meddling.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. Banks. Auto companies. Health care. What will Washington take over next? The Internet, if they can get away with it.

    the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are now considering a direct frontal assault on the Internet, reclassifying it as an old-fashioned regulated monopoly, like the Ma Bell-era phone system. This would mean regulators overseeing every aspect of the network.

    These rules would prohibit Internet Service Providers from treating types of traffic differently, potentially forcing high-priority video conferencing, telemedicine, and similar services to compete for bandwidth with teenagers stealing video games. They would put regulators, instead of the market, in a position to determine which business models can be used, and these restrictions will likely deter private investment, slowing the remarkable innovation we have seen over the past decade of a largely unregulated Internet.

    When private investment declines, taxpayers will be forced to step in and subsidize broadband Internet, with lots of strings attached. And regulations could eventually even restrict political speech online.

    Free Press founder Robert McChesney famously said:

    "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

    Americans for Prosperity

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. Corporations are not people

    Corporations are what keep the job market alive...

    Corporations do not stay in the top 10 very long...

    Corporations seem to be your enemy.. go try to buy some stock

    witout a corporation.

    Stock Market is what the finaciall people judge the economy by

    so if there are no corporations there is no stock market..

    Someone said Freepress wants the open internet...

    Well Americans Want freedom.. Americans want to be able to run

    their business without the government telling them to tie their shoes...

    America was the strongest country in the world..

    Now we have debt above the tallest mountain and regulations

    that are cutting the throat of business...

    How does that help our country thrive???

    2 recovery bills, a stimulus bill, 2 jobs bills

    and still no job market to talk of...100 + thousand jobs

    this month.. the month they hire census workers..

    stimulus funds.. 131,000 per job created in Washington state..

    The Postal service in the red since congress took control in the 1970's... Amtrak.. loses money every day.. one run cost over 400 dollars per mile traveled... I could go on and on with what

    the government cannot do right... now I go to what the government should do right...

    The government of the United States of America should

    follow the Citution of the United States...

    The regulatory power the government is supposed to have

    is minimall... all they are supposed to do is control trade between the states.. keep the trade regular.. that is it.. that is all they are supposed to do.. make sure a state does not tax another states goods... simple, plain, and basic..

    Calling someone a corporate shill is not what this board is for..

    Personal attacks do nothing but create more friction...

    I have been attacked many times on this board.. but when

    I pull the constituion out and mention it everyone seems

    to not answer.. so I know for a fact I am in the right!

    To give our government more control over our lives is wrong,

    it is unconstitutional.

    Besides that this will create more governemnt jobs that have to be paid for when our governemnt is so far in the whole we cannot see daylight..

    So I tell you what.. if our government takes our freedom of speech away from the web.. what are you going to do then???

    Oh and Google.. is/ was created by an person here on a school visa... is it really thinking of our COUNTRIES best???

    Now look at what Google is doing in China.. GOVERNMENT CONTROLED INTERNET!!!!!

    If you really want to be fair to all.. go read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.

    The answer is in those pages..

    Keep the Governemnt out of my internet please.. I am happy with my connection and my service... I have never been blocked from a page, I know noone that has been blocked from somewhere...

    I know that the guy downtown that bought his equipment and paid his technitions to set up the access point spent his own money on his own equipment.. so you tell me he should not be able to control HIS OWN EQUIPMENT???? What about this is American?????

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. First please excuse my typo's.. in the post above especially.. hehe.. What about this is America should be in America.. sorry...

    Now I place another "argument" for you...

    The arguments made by advocates of so-called net neutrality regulations have been proven false by nearly a decade of experience since their concerns were first raised. The Internet is a remarkable free market success story, and the vast majority of Internet users are not clamoring for regulation. Self-styled consumer groups asking for regulation actually represent an extreme left-wing ideology that is hostile to free-market capitalism and puts its trust in government. That is not the position of the "grassroots" or most American Internet users. I urge you to reject new regulations and allow the free-market Internet to continue flourishing.

    These rules would put regulators, instead of the market, in a position to determine which business models can be used, and these restrictions will likely deter private investment, slowing the remarkable innovation we have seen over the past decade of a largely unregulated Internet.

    Someone used the Freepress as an argument..

    you don't like America?

    Robert McChesney, is the self proclaimed MARXIST founder of Free Press...

    Go read about marxism...

    The Ninth Amendment states:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the People"

    And of course the people retained the power to elect their political officials, which is/was a final check on OVERWEENING POWER!!! (notice the was in this sentence).

    Because the principles the Founders aticulated transcend both time and technology, they will serve us well as we move through the 21st century, if only we understand then correctly and apply them well.

    Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the

    Constitution...

    It is up to each generation, to preserveand protect the constitution for ourselves and for future generations..

    The Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American People...

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

    Protect us from overweeneing government, but only if

    we respect our forefathers wishes...

    I see someone thinks there is going to be an election in 2012..

    I wonder if ther is going to be.. remember Hitler made sure there was no election in only 4 years...that proves any country can lose their rights in 4 years...

    Now I see the racist remarks.. the dis me 'cause I used Hitler's name.. but I use it as an example, what can happen in 4 years of totalitarian leadership.. kinda like this administration.. in my eyes....

    Banks. Auto companies. Health care. Internet, try to shut down Fox, take our freedom of speech away... that is what I see...

    I do not see this administration following the Constitution.

    Thus I do not want this administration in charge of what is on the internet...

    If you look hard enough I put proof of what I say in one of my other posts... I took the words right out of the FCC czar's mouth.

    The FCC wants any page that does not agree with this administration off the internet....

    Go read and study this issue more.. go read both sides not just one side...

    I am not involved with any organization, I use the Constitution

    of the United States and read what the Government wants to do..

    I am not affiliated with any ISP, but I want my freedom not government control.

    EDUCATION NOT REGULATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Capitalism not Socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Smaller Government means more of my hard earned money in MY POCKET not the Governments wastefull spending...

    One guy I talked to said: " The people need governemnt control because the people are like children" .. My responce; The way this country was founded the Governemnt is our child

    We the People are supposed to baby it not be babied by it...

    The idea is not to have the government control us but we are supposed to control the government.

    If the schools taught the constitution like it was taught before the government stepped into the schools you all would be against this "regulated internet" that you are fighting to get.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. @ntom were would you like me to start your talking points three post having very little to do with actual net neutrality and its more your rant against this admin. And what little does have to do with net neutrality is half truths at its best. Ok but you want to pull out the constitution the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Throughout the years the government has protected this right. This hasn't been over stepping their bounds has it. Data is an extended form of free speech i think we can mostly agree with that statement and it should be protected. Telecom is trying to claim ownership of data and the tubes.

    Im sorry but if you didn't know we are already subsidizing telecoms. Internet traffic has been blocked or throttled by telecomm. You can do the reading on your own or maybe not because google pulled out the china deal maybe fox didn't tell you. Its kinda funny a techy person who actually cares about this issue would have known that.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. Tony the Comcast Bill is still law...

    I do know a little and I read a LOT..

    This country was FOUNDED ON CAPITALISM!!!!

    Capitalism is described in one of my other posts..

    This country was meant to be one of competition...

    They this very day are taking that away!!!!

    I want the internet to be open, I do not want

    the Governemnt to tell me what I can and cannot read.

    You want Google to pull out of the US, let the FCC do

    what they want... I do not want that.. I want any company

    to open any web page even if they do not want to see what is on it

    I like the can spam act it has helped.. a little...

    What I do see is people that do not understand the ISP

    is someone elses property.. do you let Uncle Sam tell you

    what you can do with your property? They are working a deal

    now that you will not be able to do anything unless they say you can.. you need a mother and father that bad?

    you can't handle competition between companys?

    you can't say oh this company is slowing me down.. I will go to that one? you cannot control your own destiny? what I do not understand... WHY does the Governemnt have to control anything besides what the constitution says.. keep the trade regular...

    that is it.. what do you not understand of that simple quote?

    We subsidize a lot of stuff we should not...

    but as I said before...

    These guys do not just get the equipment without paying for it..

    The lines that were laid in our town was from a private company..

    They own them, they paid to have them in place...

    They bought and paid for it...

    The router I go through to post this is paid for by a person..

    I do not think the Government should go to this person and tell

    them they have to buy this router instead of the one they have...

    I do not think the governemnt should force him to set his price...

    it is his equipment not mine.. he is letting me "rent" the bandwidth he pays for...He pays a ton for the bandwidth he shares with us.. and you want some guy from the east coast to tell him how to charge and control his property...

    Where are we going to come up with the money to enforce

    what is written? What kind of tax hike for this group of laws?what rights are they going to exchange for what you are asking?

    How much am I alowed to keep from my paycheck? After all I am the one that goes and earns my money.. how much do you expect me to pay for your wishes?

    So add tax to your internet charge and see how much this "openinternet" is gonna cost you.. no more small ISP's to

    compete with the big ones... what is that going to do for you???

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. Any rights you give to the government will not be restored.

    Notice the Temporary taxes that never seem to end?

    There is a war waging at our borders.. does homeland security act?

    A short take of what I personally see happening here...

    Alinsky's model...

    The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it from within.

    "Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people." In other words sell the people on it.

    Once you organize the people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution,then an organized people is on the move. From there it is a short step to political pollution...

    Alinsky "followers" have an unwavering end.. to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others... what they call social injustice...

    as to justify any and every means to achieve it....

    This is just a touch of the model I see being used by

    the people we have in power..

    The Fox statement was from a report long ago

    when the WH officials tried to stop them from reporting...

    in other words if the other news company's did not raise

    a stink, the freedom of speech would have been gone.

    The other news company's saw that, so they stood up

    for the competition.. to save our rights they stood up together,

    then they go to the news room and put each other down... rofl.

    but when the constitution was attacked.. by this administration...

    they banded together to save our rights.

    again I say the Comcast bill is still Law.... the internet is open.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. Im not touching the straw-mans but i do want to know what fantasy world you live in because im not sure actually. I do agree with you on one point increased competition would ensure that the internet would stay open. This is unlikely and impractical due to the sheer size of the United States. For example, i am only able to choose Comcast as my broadband provider. AT&T does provide service in my area if and only if i can't connect to Comcast. I mean this is very competitive in my book. Also, lets say ok you can keep what you own when my company sells me a cable modem or cell phone (assuming full price is paid i am not talking about promo deals linked to the carrier) i cannot configure the device i am limited to what they will allow. Or is you argument that a device after being purchased is somehow still their property and we own nothing? By your own assumptions the hardware manufactures can determine what data goes through their systems. After they allowed all data to go through they just decide to stop supporting this. I mean would that be fair for the poor poor companies that used their devices in the first place. So what we can protect the companies and not the person. I mean seriously when do the people get a say in what they can and can't do. your argument is backwards to say the least.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. It is unfortunate that some people are clearly brainwashed by right wing media talk show personalities like Glenn Beck they think government protecting Net Neutrality = government takeover. Anything government does to protect consumers is bad.

    This is not the case though. It is worth noting even The Christian Coalition a religiously conservative group has expressed support for Net Neutrality and teamed up with the liberal Moveon.org before the 2008 Presidential election to petition for the restoration of Net Neutrality. If you do a Google search for Christian Coalition and Net Neutrality (on the first search results page there used to be a link to a page of the Christian Coalition's website presenting the conservative case for Net Neutrality -- now the same search results page has an updated article by Christian Coalition stating Great Victory for Christian Coalition of America on Net Neutrality" thanks to the Obama Administration's decision to protect it.

    SaveTheInternet.com run by Free Press.Net has an article from last December titled "The Internet Must Not Become A Segregated Community" http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/12/01/internet-must-not-become-segregated-community

    Also, to the person who was talking about losing Internet freedom due to government intervention to protect consumers and all the stuff about government suppressing corporate power actually hurting not just businesses but the labor market we did not have 2 Recovery bills, 2 stimulus bills a job bill. We had an economic stimulus bill under former President George W. Bush in his last year of office and then the Recovery Act providing a second round of economic stimulus but don't confuse recovery bills and stimulus bills as separate things -- it is the same -- we had 2 stimulus bills one was called the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act.

    Former Bush speechwriter David Frum recently admitted that the GOP could have had more opportunities to influence the crafting of the health insurance reform bill now passed into law but wanted to obstruct the process purposely in the hope they can prevent the bill from passing to break the President. They did not want to compromise they wanted reform to fail and the failure to harm the President. He also said the GOP thought FOX News worked for them but now it appears Republicans are working for FOX.

    Now Senator Tom Coburn has even admitted FOX News is biased -- I heard an audio commentary of him saying so uncensored yesterday on the news (MSNBC played the recording for its viewers but they didn't change anything they played it the way Coburn spoke) he said that while he disliked the health insurance reform bill nothing in it gives the IRS powers to arrest you for not buying health insurance. He said this responding to a question by one woman of Speaker Pelosi being a bad person -- Senator Coburn was forced into a position where he had to defend the Speaker was a good person and to defend the bill he disagrees with.

    Senator Coburn suggested that people need to turn to a variety of sources to get their news -- watching FOX News only all day will expose you to their bias -- watching MSNBC all day also can expose someone to a liberal bias. FOX is biased in favor of conservatives, MSNBC for liberals. Instead of watching only 1 news channel try watching FOX for a while and the switch to another news channel and hear what they have to say for a while -- its a way to stay properly informed. Don't believe everything you hear on FOX News just as some may tell you no to believe everything you hear on MSNBC.

    Senator Coburn also added that the Speaker was a nice person but he disliked his policies -- when someone replied back that she was a bad person he replied that she is actually a nice person have you met her? To those who think she's not nice do you think so just because of what FOX reports? Senator Coburn said in effect not to believe everything FOX says.

    Frankly, sometimes I turn on FOX News to hear what their saying but know so much crazy pyscho talk can happen on their network -- that I'm careful not to be misled. If I hear something on FOX News I'm inclined to verify the story before believing it -- find other outlets reporting the same story and see what they have to say about it.

    Net Neutrality is not a government takeover of the Internet. They are rules to protect consumers from corporations wanting to become gatekeepers on the Web. Comcast may try to argue under the tragic Citizens United ruling that they have a free speech right to block e-mails being sent to and from their email service critical of their company. What about the free speech rights of users though? This is like saying the U.S. Postal Service can choose what mail to deliver. Even though it can't and is obligated to deliver all mail -- it can't prioritize what to deliver. Now the Postal Service has delivery options and you can prioritize whether you want a letter or package you send to arrive in next day delivery, two day delivery etc which costs more or standard delivery which may be cheaper or even free.

    There is propaganda even on FOX News and these people are corporate types -- I'm sure Glenn Beck knows the truth but won't say it -- if he doesn't he is in denial. He has an agenda as does the rest of FOX News to say anything critical of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi etc whether it is true or not.

    Listening to or watching news reporting done with fair criticism in which something untrue is reported as being untrue and there are facts to back up the information is better than listening to unfounded criticisms with no merit.

    Just because your Republican and like conservatives -- doesn't mean you should believe everything FOX News employees say. I can elaborate more on this if needed in a later post.

    However, I maintain Net Neutrality is essential for the economy --its good for consumers and good for business in general online -- maybe the incumbent ISPs don't, like rules affecting their businesses but e-commerce conducted online can occur much more smoothly with these protections.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. Update: To the individual speaking about government passing Recovery bills, 2 stimulus bills and a jobs bill but the economy still lagging and going to suffer because of increased business regulations if you were referring to the unpopular taxpayer bailouts for financial services companies and later auto companies when talking about recovery bills that was TARP.

    I just wanted to make that clarification to ensure no confusion over what you said about Recovery and stimulus bills -- TARP and both economic stimulus bills under Bush and now Obama are separate -- TARP was for the bailouts and both stimulus bills were separate from that.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. hey will pay... if the company wants to continue to thrive,

    they will do what the customer wants.. simple business..

    the simplest business model in the world.. service keeps

    customers coming back.

    Think of it this way...

    You go out and buy a business, a guy comes in and starts creating

    problems with your help and other customers, you have the right

    to kick him out and tell him not to come back, you have the right

    to refuse him service... the same thing with ISP's.. they

    have the right to refuse you service...they are a business.

    You paid for the business you have the right to run it your way.

    If your customers do not like your business model, they will not

    come to your store...

    I do agree that when the big ISP's slow service it can be

    frustrating, that is why I would start a new ISP in your area,

    to compete and make them play fair. The big company in our area

    is very fair to us, there are still phone line problems and such,

    but they have enough competition they have to keep the price fair to keep the customers.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. What you fail to understand is that they own ground you make your stand on. ISP are not seperate entities working toward lower cost to consumers. They are more concerned with keeping thier legacy's alive even if it means stiffling innovation. I mean if you can't see the conflict of intrest staring you in the face im sorry really. This isnt something the pro NN people are making up its a very real problem. Also, if you really think about it content on the internet does not follow standard buisness models or economic principles. Really and truly it operates on a cloud model. Technology doesnt work the way you describe it when some one doesnt like the buisness model they cuircumvent it.(try me on that statement)

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. For the most part I agree with you, ntom.

    However, because there are big bucks in Washington and regulators and legislators seem willing to regulate the competition of their cronies or to provide subsidies, a few weak businesses owners will go that route. Washington ruins the normal feedback in the market. It harms us all.

    The best thing to do for us all and especially for the people to enjoy the Internet is to keep government out of it and let the market optimize.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. [snip]

    ISP are not seperate entities working toward lower cost to consumers. They are more concerned with keeping thier legacy's alive even if it means stiffling innovation.

    [unsnip]

    The two people that I know that run ISP's work toward improving

    their equipment on a regular basis.. they update software weekly.

    They work 12 to 15 maybe more hours a day trying to make their

    service better... so what you say above is a fallacy or propaganda you have heard from somewhere...proof to me is looking at the two ISP's that I know... a small town makes it easy to know them...

    [snip]

    content on the internet does not follow standard buisness models or economic principles. Really and truly it operates on a cloud model. Technology doesnt work the way you describe it when some one doesnt like the buisness model they cuircumvent it.

    [unsnip]

    How? Explain this one to me.. business is business.. if you are an ISP you are a service, any service that does not do good to the customer will eventually be drivin out by competition.. hmm keep coming back to competition.. wonder why...

    A cloud model.. hmm.. most true business that made it through the dot com bubble are solid companies that offered what the customer wants and followed through with their word.. or they are doing a ponsi scheme and eventually will go out of business...

    Business is business it does not matter where you do it,

    The customer rules or you go out of business..there is no

    "cloudy" way to do business and expect that business to survive...

    Ask any business owner if they could stay in business selling shabby goods at high prices or give bad service at high prices, they will tell you, they would be out of business in less than a year...

    I live at the very end of the phone lines they go no farther

    there is nowhere else for them to go from here except Canada

    or the oacean, we have at least 5 ISP's.. and you tell me you only have one.. how is that possible.. I live in a town of about 4000 people, and at the very end of the phone line, plus I have dish and directv for access if the others don't give me the service I want.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. I guess even if i give you the proof you want you will still lie to yourself. Lol...i live in a small town also so i know what the companies you are refering to are. Comcast has literaly asked congress if they could control the analoge ports to televisions. This would mean that if you wanted to develope or use an alternate DVR system the analoug ports wouldn't be viable for that. I mean isnt that innovation using your own skills to create a feature comfort for yourself or isnt that competition going to another manufacturer. AT&T started by not allowing VoIP services on there phones. VoIP is a innovative way of making long distance calls. AT&T didnt invent this. They are also very restrictive of thier carrier lock on cell phones. I mean seriously i could make a laundry list of thing. However, it seems really pointless.

    Most web sites are developed using some sort of cloud model. I mean have you ever noticed that blog sites all look the same its because most of them use a CMS system. CMS may vary slightly but they all have the share features. Many places do not develop actual code anymore. Other examples of how the internet is a cloud of idea's can be seen in something like facebook. Facebook allows varying developers to produce application for its interface. Many times these are just contribution and the actual programmer recieves no monetary gain from it. Windows is trying to move to a platform where developers can contribute idea's and optimize code. And the grandaddy of collabrating idea's would of course be OSS. OSS has done pretty well for itself operating on a a nonstandard buisness model.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  28. If companies can hurt competition by getting subsidies and regs created in Washington, then we need LESS government involvement, not more.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  29. you use open source as your way to tell me about a business model that is cloudy...

    You use CMS as an example as well...

    Open source -is 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, founded in 1998.

    A public benifit corporation.. hmm one of those things you have been complaining about.. corporations...not a strong argument

    about fighting corporations...considering you use a non-profit

    and a corporation as your defense...pretty much tells me

    you do not know what you are talking about and are being coached by someone.

    It doesn't matter anyway because the courts state

    what is trying to be done is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

    So.. go fight with them...not me...

    I kept saying my other posts.. I meant what I said in another thread, and I am not going to go copy and past on an obsolete issue.. if you really want to know about my other posts, click my name and find the threads... it shows my posts...somewhere...

    You posted this comment...

    i know what the companies you are refering to are.

    The companies I am refering too are two small ISP's and my phone company.. seems you are just looking to argue... not trying to understand...

    AGAIN I SAY GO READ THE CONSTITUION.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  30. pangasamaneesh wrote:

    [quote]

    It is unfortunate that some people are clearly brainwashed by right wing media talk show personalities like Glenn Beck they think government protecting Net Neutrality = government takeover. Anything government does to protect consumers is bad.

    [unquote]

    Not true. Conservatives can and do think for themselves. The problem is that the mainstream media is biased so far left that any dissenting views, look, by comparison like right-wing extremism.

    [quote]

    SaveTheInternet.com run by Free Press.Net has an article from last December titled "The Internet Must Not Become A Segregated Community" http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/12/01/internet-must-not-become-segregated-community

    [unquote]

    FreePress is ironically named. So many organizations from the Left present arguments in favor of all kinds of issues, yet they leave out critical facts, such as cost, government inefficiencies, and increasing size and power of government. The government has a proven track record of going over budget (Medicare is costing 9 times the projected cost, for example), being inefficient, and overreaching. Weren't all you Liberals up in arms over Bush's Patriot Act, how it was infringing on Americans' privacy? It's okay with the Left to have Democratic administrations' power grow, but not Republican administrations'?

    [quote]

    Former Bush speechwriter David Frum recently admitted that the GOP could have had more opportunities to influence the crafting of the health insurance reform bill now passed into law but wanted to obstruct the process purposely in the hope they can prevent the bill from passing to break the President. They did not want to compromise they wanted reform to fail and the failure to harm the President. He also said the GOP thought FOX News worked for them but now it appears Republicans are working for FOX.

    [unquote]

    Frum does not speak for the Republicans in Congress nor does he speak for me.

    [quote]

    Senator Coburn suggested that people need to turn to a variety of sources to get their news -- watching FOX News only all day will expose you to their bias -- watching MSNBC all day also can expose someone to a liberal bias. FOX is biased in favor of conservatives, MSNBC for liberals. Instead of watching only 1 news channel try watching FOX for a while and the switch to another news channel and hear what they have to say for a while -- its a way to stay properly informed. Don't believe everything you hear on FOX News just as some may tell you no to believe everything you hear on MSNBC.

    [unquote]

    Wisely said... unfortunately, 90% of news outlets are decidedly left-leaning and there are only a handful of right-leaning ones. I go watch both mainstream media and read articles from The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post. I also watch Fox. I find it interesting that 90% of the news media omit many stories that only Fox reports. NBC and MSNBC's websites did not have any articles on the TeaParty rallies on July 4th and September 12th. Time had no pictures of the TeaParty rallies in their 2009 Year in Pictures... as if they never happened.

    [quote]

    Frankly, sometimes I turn on FOX News to hear what their saying but know so much crazy pyscho talk can happen on their network -- that I'm careful not to be misled. If I hear something on FOX News I'm inclined to verify the story before believing it -- find other outlets reporting the same story and see what they have to say about it.

    [unquote]

    Forgive me, but I have a hard time believing you. I think you are trying to cloak yourself as being unbiased, but by saying (and misspelling) "psycho talk," you show your true colors. I suspect the only Fox you watch is clips on MSNBC or YouTube. Do you also have a hard time believing MSNBC because of Chris Matthews' crazed rants?

    [quote]

    Net Neutrality is not a government takeover of the Internet. They are rules to protect consumers from corporations wanting to become gatekeepers on the Web. Comcast may try to argue under the tragic Citizens United ruling that they have a free speech right to block e-mails being sent to and from their email service critical of their company. What about the free speech rights of users though? This is like saying the U.S. Postal Service can choose what mail to deliver. Even though it can't and is obligated to deliver all mail -- it can't prioritize what to deliver. Now the Postal Service has delivery options and you can prioritize whether you want a letter or package you send to arrive in next day delivery, two day delivery etc which costs more or standard delivery which may be cheaper or even free.

    [unquote]

    The USPS also charges more for large packages, but you insist that ISP's should be forced to allow people to use BitTorrent without charging more?

    Please provide proof that Comcast wants to block anyone's email.

    Please also provide proof that Net Neutrality is not a government takeover of the ISP's.

    [quote]

    There is propaganda even on FOX News and these people are corporate types -- I'm sure Glenn Beck knows the truth but won't say it -- if he doesn't he is in denial. He has an agenda as does the rest of FOX News to say anything critical of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi etc whether it is true or not.

    [unquote]

    Your cloak of alleged neutrality is slipping...

    Tell me, what truth is Glenn Beck suppressing? What has he said that is untrue? Any specifics?

    [quote]

    Just because your Republican and like conservatives -- doesn't mean you should believe everything FOX News employees say. I can elaborate more on this if needed in a later post.

    [unquote]

    I'm a Conservative, not a Republican. I don't blindly believe anything anyone says, but Fox, and specifically Glenn Beck, usually present analysis of audio and video. Glenn Beck typically presents clips of people in the administration or government offices making statements. For example, Beck has shown a video clip of then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama at an SEIU meeting, stating that his ultimate goal is a single-payer healthcare system, but that we aren't going to get there in one step. Beck has also shown FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, stating that Venezuelan dictator, Chavez, took power in a "democratic revolution" and that he expects some in radio to "step down to make room for others to have power." Is this the "psycho talk" you mean?

    If so, you *should* believe it, because that's *really* what Barack Obama and Mark Lloyd said.

    [quote]

    However, I maintain Net Neutrality is essential for the economy --its good for consumers and good for business in general online -- maybe the incumbent ISPs don't, like rules affecting their businesses but e-commerce conducted online can occur much more smoothly with these protections.

    [unquote]

    This view is short-sighted. Even if it's not a government takeover, forcing the ISP's to allow their equipment to be used for extremely high-bandwidth services, is going to result in poor service for everyone. This is a fact. It is not debatable. The ISP's only have so much bandwidth. They would like to have more, but there are costs associated with this additional bandwidth and the government has no right to force ISP's to allow a small number of users to overwhelm their equipment.

    Imagine if the two left lanes of all 3-lane highways in the US were taken up by cars going 200 MPH. Imagine if all the rest of the traffic had to be squeezed down to the one right lane. Would we have better highway travel or worse if we prevented those 200 MPH cars on the road?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  31. dbg

    Everyone supporting neutered internet repeatedly ascribes evil behavior to the ISP. "..they will lock us out, ..they plan to stifle or freedom, they'll take our children, .." NONE of it having ever happened, nor is there any likelihood it ever will.. No one is blocking you from any site.

    Bandwidth is not infinite and not free. Packet prioritization is essential for continued operation of important services. I'll explain it again if you'd like. And competitive business models and opportunity for profit is the best way to spur continued investment in creative and innovative new services.

    "Net Neutrality" remains a slogan looking for a problem. Govt intervention is the surest way to destroy a great global treasure that grew on its own.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  32. The court decision in Comcast v. FCC while unfortunate stated that the FCC under the previous Bush Cheney Administration's approach to punishing Comcast for violating Net Neutrality was without merit as the FCC's approach in that case to protecting Net Neutrality was unconstitutional. However, they did not say Net Neutrality is itself unconstitutional -- in fact the Obama FCC responded that while unfortunate this ruling does not prevent them from protecting Net Neutrality it just requires them to adopt a different approach.

    The ruling was made after the Obama Administration entered office but the case was filed against the Bush FCC. If the FCC reclassifies broadband as an information service with a telecommunications service they can reassert their legal authority to protect the open Internet without any Congressional action needed -- they can bring broadband back under the common carrier regulations phone companies are required to comply with (and ISPs during the Clinton Gore years were subject to) -- and there is nothing the courts can do to prevent the FCC if they do this from preserving Net Neutrality.

    I am hoping the FCC does this reclassification even though the incumbent ISPs will try to fight this to maintain the status quo it is a battle worth fighting to protect the open Internet from being discriminated against by corporate gatekeepers.

    It is also worth noting the corporate news media like to talk about moral values when its convenient for them but always fail to address issues of income inequality in America and the U.S.'s Digital Divide --- the number of people left without broadband Internet access because they cannot afford it at the rates the incumbents charge or the incumbents refuse to deploy in the areas they live.

    We can close the Digital Divide and preserve, protect and extend Net Neutrality to the wireless world so all Internet users can benefit from the same consumer protections.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  33. Go read what the Obama FCC wants.. I put a link to it somewhere in these forums....can't seem to find that post right now.

    [snip]

    Obama FCC responded that while unfortunate this ruling does not prevent them from protecting Net Neutrality it just requires them to adopt a different approach.

    [unsnip]

    My answer to that..

    Alinsky's model... How to gain and keep power.

    Justify any and every means to achieve ...

    It would be crimminal NOT to deceive,

    lie and murder to advance the "cause"....

    Dress as your enemy and create a problem...

    Global warming turns into climate change...The climate in my town has not changed in my lifetime.. I can go get the records...

    My old teacher has kept records for over 70 years...

    He said they lie. I do not need any more proof...

    20 times the ice pack has reached New York, 20 times they have receeded.. no one has found how far they have receeded in the past... yet.

    Illegal immigrant turns into undocumented citizen...

    What does the word illegal mean now?

    ETC.....

    Someone used the Freepress as an argument..

    Robert McChesney, the self proclaimed MARXIST is the founder of Free Press...

    Go read about the difference between our Government and marxism...

    Japan... go look at the little towns and villages before

    you say they have better access....

    That other country has villages that still have no electricity...

    yet you use them as an internet example..

    The corporations create jobs, keep our government and stock market alive, and you all dis. them?

    The open internet issue was from Comcast slowing traffic to the world wide web (not the internet).. They did it because they were asked to help stop the trade of illegal software...

    Then the customers started to complain.. something most of them wanted until it affected them.

    How many rights are we to keep to ourselves?

    How big do you really want our Government?

    4.1 million private sector jobs lost, during that same

    period over 170 thousand government jobs were created.

    How are we going to pay 170 thousand people and pay down a deficit when 4.1 million stopped paying taxes?

    The Post office made money until late in the 1970's

    Congress took over the decision making.. Postal service started losing money, Taxes when up...

    Amtrak.. go look at their records since the Governemnt stepped in... Schools, the SAT scores went down and have continued to go down since the government stepped in, in the 1060's...The cost has risen dramatically...

    The private sector does a better job at

    everything.. except training an army....

    please keep the government out of my internt....

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  34. i was making a point about content when i was talking about how we are using the internet as a middle ground to come up with some truly groundbreaking things. And im not out to argue really im just trying to make a point about how the internet has adjusted the way we think of things. The cloud im referring to is us as a people and how we can keep improving on little things. Also, i did use for profit organizations in my rebuttal but you choose to ignore them and that's fine its you right. And no im not a business major but i do look see and absorb the way the internet has fundamentally changed our lives. If you seriously think that i am being coached with my bader grammar and random thought process ok man whatever.

    And to people that are complaining about the liberal media your in for a treat when Comcast gets its way. To add insult to injury newscorp is going to a paid site. So all Comcast would have to do is slow the traffic to their sites. And bam no more fox news online and msnbc online becomes the number 1 news source gg.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  35. Wow Tony, over 300 posts.. good for you..

    I read a lot of your posts in this and other threads

    your comment about using organizations...

    you have used comcast, AT&T, and Open source... where

    do you use another "organization"?????

    You still do not get the whole America thing...

    I will tell you again..

    Go read the Constitutioin of the United States of America

    Go read who is running freepress learn about the person behind

    the page...

    Go to the Freedom Center and find info on the Alinsky Model...

    Maybe spend some time on the freedom center web site.

    Then come back here and tell me you want this thing to pass..

    Go here:

    http://news.newsmax.com/?K6I6XYmm6s0kfn2QnAas6uTKztykblU1K&http://americansforprosperity.org/stop-the-internet-takeover-1

    don't just read that page... go look at what they really stand for...and think... and go read history, about why we are in America and why our forefathers came here.

    The Governemnt is our BABY, not the other way around...

    We should be contoling it instead of asking it to be more controlling.

    After reading your other posts.. I really do think someone is paying you to write, or you are in a Union...

    Oh and the first P2P was BBS not some music thing...

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  36. dbg

    "..when Comcast gets its way.." come on! There are plenty of laws applicable to their potential restraint of trade. Class actions could destroy them and they know that. Their methods to block bit-torrent were a little ham-fisted, but I'll reiterate that prioritization of packets will be ESSENTIAL --if you need an explanation why, I'm happy to supply. Bandwidth is not infinite and not free.

    Nobody is blocking you from anything and they would never get away with doing so if they tried.

    Do we really want blanket regulations for things that only MIGHT happen in the minds of paranoid people who don't understand how the internet works?

    If you don't understand the topic please don't blather your "stick it to the man" bullcrap. You're only sticking it to yourself and jeopardizing a true global treasure.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  37. vilgalys Idea Submitter

    When you compare broadband costs and speeds in the US to other developed countries, it's easy to see that ISPs are providing a sub-par service for a premium price. There's no technological reason that we couldn't see 1Gb/s speeds for as low as $20/month, except that the market hasn't been pushed that far yet. And why not? Because most ISPs enjoy de-facto monopolies in the areas they operate and have little incentive to develop their lines without government grants to do so. And I'm certainly not in favor of any government-run or government-regulated internet in the US, but a few things need to be said:

    The lines used by private telcos, not to mention the technologies behind them, have been developed and subsidized using public money. This has nothing to do with "open source" or "big corporations" or "the constitution." This is about who built what -- we built the internet with taxpayer money. Taxpayers, that is, consumers own it. Not telcos, not the FCC, so what we're talking about here is what's best for consumers.

    "Net neutrality" is not in any way similar to "government regulation." It is the absence of any regulation, whatsoever, specifically by private corporations. This isn't a matter of "the big bad corporations" being mean and it's not a "stick it to the man" kind of thing at all. This is only about whether or not we allow a profit-driven institution to control a public resource and regulate it in a way so as to maximize their own profits. There is no public benefit to a telco making a huge pile of money, because they're not going to reinvest it back into infrastructure unless competition forces them to. And competition between large utilities takes place where? It's all government contracts. So like it or not, government interest is already very well tied up with ISPs.

    Allowing an ISP to prioritize packets is dangerous in two ways -- one is that with large, diversified corporations such as AOL Time Warner, you have one company able to grant premium access to its own web services while throttling it's competitors. This is an anti-competitive tactic, it's anti-capitalist, bad for consumers, and bad for the American economy. Secondly, in a tiered internet system, small startups -- these new sites that come out of nowhere, like facebook, twitter, digg, whatever -- would have to pay for a large overhead to support their bandwidth. The current model, which has worked very well for those sites is to offer their service for free until they build a large user-base at which point they can make lots of money from advertising. If they have to cover large costs right away to get on the "top tier" of bandwidth, that's going to make things much for difficult for small startups to get off the ground.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  38. Good thoughts, dbg.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  39. vilgalys writes:

    [quote]

    "Net neutrality" is not in any way similar to "government regulation." It is the absence of any regulation, whatsoever, specifically by private corporations. This isn't a matter of "the big bad corporations" being mean and it's not a "stick it to the man" kind of thing at all. This is only about whether or not we allow a profit-driven institution to control a public resource and regulate it in a way so as to maximize their own profits. There is no public benefit to a telco making a huge pile of money, because they're not going to reinvest it back into infrastructure unless competition forces them to.

    [unquote]

    Net Neutrality is very much government control. You are naive. You trust the government too much. The FCC Chairman's statements are cleverly worded to allow regulations to be created that will force the ISP's to spend money on infrastructure in areas that are not profitable. They are also going to force ISP's to allow a small number of high-bandwidth users to overuse bandwidth which will only cause the ISP's to have to install more equipment to keep their average users happy... this costs money and will end up costing us users more for service.

    Which public resource are the telcos controlling? You reach the internet on lines run and paid for by private companies.

    One thing that I've asked for repeatedly in this forum is: How are these new regulations going to promote smaller ISP's? How are they going to "level the playing field?"

    vilgalys further writes:'

    [quote]

    Allowing an ISP to prioritize packets is dangerous in two ways -- one is that with large, diversified corporations such as AOL Time Warner, you have one company able to grant premium access to its own web services while throttling it's competitors. This is an anti-competitive tactic, it's anti-capitalist, bad for consumers, and bad for the American economy. Secondly, in a tiered internet system, small startups -- these new sites that come out of nowhere, like facebook, twitter, digg, whatever -- would have to pay for a large overhead to support their bandwidth. The current model, which has worked very well for those sites is to offer their service for free until they build a large user-base at which point they can make lots of money from advertising. If they have to cover large costs right away to get on the "top tier" of bandwidth, that's going to make things much for difficult for small startups to get off the ground.

    [unquote]

    It is possible for AOL to provide preferential bandwidth for their own services and throttle others, but that's not what's being debated. AOL could throttle service for people found to be posting Liberal positions on blogs and allow full bandwidth to those posting Conservative positions, but that too is not being debated here. We're talking about Comcast throttling very high-bandwidth users (BitTorrent), which would negatively impact the rest of their customers. They are Comcast's lines... they installed them, they paid for them, they have a right to charge more for higher bandwidth use. It's foolish to say that Facebook or Twitter would not have been born if higher bandwidth use was more costly. You want something for nothing. You want to get gigabits of bandwidth for a few bucks a month. Lines, servers, technicians, customer service agents all cost money... who is going to pay for it all?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  40. "If large ISP and web providers ..."

    ISP's not web providers. I am a small web provider. Providers want and need Net Neutrality. It is those providers who stand to lose if they suddenly find their sites or services slowed down unless they fork over a fee to the ISP's.

    In this battle providers and ISP's are not on the same sides. Providers are on the side of free speech.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  41. This is what I am afraid of..

    This is why I think the Gov. should stay out.

    the Senate is considering attaching the Internet Kill Switch bill as a rider to other legislation that would have bi-partisan support.

    “It’s hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own,” Senator Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told GovInfoSecurity.com. Carper is chairman of the Senate subcommittee with cybersecurity oversight.

    Under instructions from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) are working to combine their separate bills into one that can be attached to another piece of legislation, such as the Defense Authorization Act.

    While proponents say an Internet Kill Switch is needed to protect the nation’s power, water and banking grids, what it really is is a way to control the flow of information. Experts have said that the nation’s power and water grids are not connected directly to the Internet.

    Lieberman let slip his real thoughts on the Internet Kill Switch in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley when he said, “Right now China — the government — can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too.”

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  42. ntom: "This is what I am afraid of..

    This is why I think the Gov. should stay out."

    This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Totally unrelated.

    With or without Net Neutrality if the gov. decides it wants a kill switch it will get it's kill switch. Just like it had the entire phone network routed through the NSA under Bush. Did not even pass a bill, just did it.

    Technically a well placed phone call or two can shut down the internet now by having the DNS servers turned off. That way if you don't know the actual IP address of sites you have pretty much killed the internet.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)