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 »
The Open Internet & Innovation
Would anyone agree that the current root threat to neutrality on the Internet is caused by the lack of funding for the infrastructure needed to support the services used on the Internet today, specifically the last mile infrastructure?
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 »
At issue, the language the FCC crafted in its proposed rule making, specifically FCC NPRM Paragraph 106 which seems to suggest a blanket mandate that disallows ISP’s to prioritize access for content, application, or services providers. Digital Society, (a digital think tank that believes culture and commerce are inseparable, that the digital economy flourishes when people are free and rights are secure, and that free ...more »
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 ...more »
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 »
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 »
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.
The new net neutrality rules must be structured in such a way that they do not inhibit innovation. The priniple of sell and sell alike must rule. Any network provider which uses any traffic shaping technology must do so evenly for any content provider who wishes to subscribe to that service. All content providers must be able to subscribe to any traffic shaping service that is available to any content provider. Any ...more »
I am appalled, but not surprised by what I see here. This is the rule of the mob. Innovators and investors pour billions of dollars and years of their lives into building the internet infrastructure, and now that it is up, working and heavily used, the users decide that the builders should lose the right to control what they have built. The statements that "the government" built the internet is incorrect. Yes, in ...more »
Since I can only access some of the FCC web site it makes it hard to figure out what is actually wrong. What I see is in affect to a certain point already... Comcast is being sued, the others are being told to be fair with their servers... and they state they may make changes after the court cases.. sooo how much good is this talking thing...rofl http://www.fcc.gov/ Off the FCC pages this is from the 1996 rules and ...more »
Novel idea if the government could unbind the administrators hands with royalties for placement, open distribution of office space for demarks/postmarks of hubs. This is need before any of the untopian playland of the net you prose there Toi With the Government gone we can go back where the Net started. As an academic tool for masters of there trade to teach the apprentice and welcome journeymen at cost only to those ...more »
I agree with all 6 of the new rules that are being implemented. They are more like basic guidelines for keeping unrestricted internet access the way it is. There is only one thing that I am concerned with, might just be AT&T Propaganda but I have to say anyways. Do not restrict companies from having multiple packages for internet access. When people have a drop in income they might have to either get a lesser package ...more »
We need to get away from sponsorship in our society. We already pay a ISP fee and we may pay subscription fees on top of that. What we need are models that are not ad supported as we are already paying for the services and sponsorship preempts the usefulness of the platforms. We do not give up privacy in exchange for services. It needs to be possible to avoid ads all together or where there are ads they need to be ...more »
I had satellite internet once, before DSL arrived at my home, and it was a horrible horrible experience. Certain applications did not work (the update downloader for the popular game World of Warcraft comes to mind, as it was blocked altogether). Combined upload/download bandwidth was restricted to a ridiculously low rate (400 MEGABYTES per week on my first one). These practices are detrimental to the consumer, who ...more »