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 »
The Open Internet & Innovation
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 »
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 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 »
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 »
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 »
Ok, Comcast, AT&T, etc. have done some bad things by placing various filters on some of the services provided to users. And, every time they do, they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and the people take them to task. When was the last time anyone in "The Government" got called out for stealing from the American public? And, in those very few times when it did happen, what were the repercussions? Under... 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 »
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.
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!
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 »
History teaches that democrocies eventually devolve into centrally planned and controlled that die under their own disfunction. The concept that the founders understood was to distribute power as close to the people and regulate as little as possible. Leave to the free market (individual liberty) as much as you can, if necessary regulate at the local level, if and if necessary at the state level and as a last resort... more »
The Internet is free and open infrastructure that provides almost unlimited support for free speech, free enterprise and free assembly. Nothing in human history, with the possible exception of movable type -- has done more to encourage all those freedoms. We need to be very careful about how we regulate it, especially since it bears only superficial resemblances to the many well-regulated forms of infrastructure it alters... more »
I also remember the head of the Patent Office wanted to close Patents in the 1890's because "anything of value has been invented already." Typical governmental bureaucratic short-sightedness that stymies growth and opportunity. And we don't need the government doing this for free expression of data, information, ideas and thought, and the expression thereof.
Lance M Hillier Sr
De Leon, TX
There was a time, in the wake of the supreme court's carterfone ruling in 1968, when suddenly, people could hook any devices they wanted to up to the phone network. The phone companies hated this so much because they wanted the ability to charge additional monthly fees for every single little thing that anybody could do on the phone system. fees for voice messages. fees to have a touchtone phone. extremely high fees... more »