Senator McCain (AZ) just introduced the inaptly-named "Internet Freedom Act," (S.1836) in which he and cosponsors propose to allow those things which the government's Open Internet proposal specifically prohibits. Senator McCain "called the proposed Net neutrality rules a 'government takeover' of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an 'already anemic' job market in the US." (rawstory.com) He further... more »
The Open Internet & Innovation
The "net neutrality" rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford... more »
Advocates of “net neutrality” argue against the right of the owners of the pipes (Internet Service Providers) to discriminate between different messages or to charge recipients of messages. So for example, an ISP would not be able to favor telephone calls sent over the net over movie downloads, or charge Google extra for the traffic sent their way, or to block a business if it competes with their own services, or to block... more »
Obviously we need to come up with a detailed technical language in order for this law to be effective, but the fundamental point remains that neutrality is crucial to the betterment of our access to information. I work in telecommunication, and I know exactly what the big providers want to do with throttling. The doors that it opens up are purely insane to even think about, after having 15 years of free and open access... more »
The best check on any "bad" internet providers is the competition from other internet providers. Let the market competition work. I realize the government bureaucracy will always think that the solution to every problem is more government bureaucracy. The government bureaucrat is unaccountable to the consumer and to the voter. The government bureaucracy has no incentive to do anything other than to perpetuate itself.... more »
The internet must remain neutral, to me this is clear. One need not look too far into the past to understand how a non-neutral internet might work, as most of us have lived through the chaos that was long distance telephone communications in the 80's. This MUST NOT happen on the internet. The internet relies, fundamentally, on the unimpeded, equal transmission of data, otherwise it would be easy for terrorists or hackers... more »
Net Neutrality is vital for information and online freedoms. Without something like net neutrality, service providers could charge piecemeal for their services. Granting only access for certain sites, or giving yahoo traffic priority over a start-up website because yahoo can pay more. Innovation would be stifled and internet access could become unaffordable. Support Net Neutrality!
Imagine if you picked up the telephone to order a Papa John's and Ma Bell tried to steer you towards Dominos Pizza instead, because Dominos is paying kickbacks to your telco. Extreme example, I know, but illustrative of the "traffic shaping/prioritization" shenanigans that will develop if we don't insist on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is fundamental to an Open Internet. Don't be distracted by FUD.
Part of the problem with network neutrality is the telecommunications companies don't have the bandwidth for today's demand. This is entirely their fault for not upgrading the infrastructure despite $200 billion in increased rates and tax breaks to do so. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html Normally competition will force these companies to provide better service at reduced costs. However... more »
The internet has thrived precisely because it is free and open to innovation from the smallest to the largest entity. It is because the net was open that all of these wonderful things were built on top of it. Now that the network is worth so much money (because the innovators made it so), the ISPs like Comcast think they should be able to control who does what. This will prevent new ideas from ever getting the chance... more »
Rather than repost my feelings on this subject. I will just provide a link to an article I wrote for my blog on net neutrality.
I AM SO CONFUSED I don't see what you guys are talking about.. I get everywhere I want to get, don't you? No site has ever blocked me (that I know of). I changed ISP's a couple times and did not have problems there either.. I do not see what is wrong with this system now.. I just don't. The people that pay for the site(property) should have control over their site not the government. Should they not? I mean it is... more »
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... more »
A company that lays any cable, or contributes in any way to the physical infrastructure of the internet should not also be in the business of selling content, the way that telephone companies and cable companies now can. a few years ago, the phone companies were only allowed to lay cables, and could not be in the tv business. they complained that they couldn't compete with cable companies who could sell cable connections,... more »
Net Neutrality or an open internet is a vital part of what the internet is about. It's because of those principals that we have had the innovation that the Internet "Freedom" Act supposedly likes. The only reason we haven't needed a net neutrality law in place so far, is because the ISPs are scared that if they push too hard and too fast, that such a law will definitely come into place. So they've been doing it slowly... more »