Here’s one view:
[This] morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
[…]
For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast. […] Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. […] Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.
[…]
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom.
And here’s another:
I simply do not understand how net neutrality detractors think that the proposed rules the FCC wants to put into place could hurt innovation. Even a cursory read of the rules shows that they are trying to set a level playing field ensuring that those who control the last mile cannot arbitrarily limit or restrict access to Internet services. Open access does not stifle innovation. Open access to Internet services is the catalyst to innovation. Let’s face it, telco’s and cable companies are the least innovative companies around. They only innovate to protect their turf.
It is my understanding that the proposed regulations have not been published yet.
Responses are divided into two camps. Supporters want the Nanny state to regulate all aspects of human existence in minute detail on the theory that only the government knows what is best for us and that individual choice is a bad thing. Typically they say the regulations don’t go far enough.
Opponents who know Obama and his admin are big fans of the the government knows best and want nothing to do with it.
I’m going to be honest here. The paternalistic BS I see coming out of Washington and from progressives reminds me of the paternalistic BS used to justify slavery and I don’t like it. Nobody should own another human and that includes the government.
I don’t care how much they claim owning me is in my best interest I don’t want to be owned. I’d rather make my own mistakes rather than have the government’s mistakes imposed on me. This is the same thing the slave owners were pushing under another name: the slaves need somebody watch out for them and take care of them and tell them what to do because they don’t have the brains to do it for themselves.
I reject that!
The people running the government have not demonstrated that level of competence!
Anyone who reads FCC proposal will notice how much control it places in hands of unelected (appointed) FCC bureaucrats. Worse, most of the controls are ill- (or un-) defined. Hence, whoever is the head of FCC can and will make actual practical rules out of their own opinion and inclinations. Get Left FCC and BigGovt. will reach deep into Internet fiddlings. Get Right FCC and BigBusiness will get lawful structure to do whatever at will.
Don’t believe me? – Ok, what is “lawful device”? Or “lawful content”? Or which of the Internet protocols is “lawful protocol”?
The only solution is Constitutional amendment defining any Internet communication as one expression of free speech. Denying both FCC AND BigBusiness any fiddling or meddling with it.
They want to set a level playing field? They might except it will be surrounded by virtual barbed wire fences restricting access.
The ISPs are not perfect by any means.. but the government has a much worse track record on being fair and consistent.
AP, the bible is the last refuge of people too untalented to write their own book.
As your McD’s post indicated, you are too lazy to fill out 18 pages of paperwork to make more money.
You must be one untalented, lazy, person.
Never ceases to amaze me how many believe there is an open market for internet service, or that capitalism seeks anything other than concentration of (economic) power in fewer and fewer hands. The only entity empowered to counterbalance business’ goal of monopoly (or at best oligopoly) is government – we, the people. If you don’t like how government functions, you are in the best country in the world to change it; just how will you change the mind of Comcast NBC Universal when it decides you need to pay more for (insert favorite alternative to lowest common denominator here).
I’ll take my chances with bureaucrats who at least in theory have to respond to voters, rather than bureaucrats who respond to stockholders solely pursuing cash. My cash.
Maybe we need an “NPR” for broadband, too.
A government subsidized non-profit alternative to commercial ISPs.
I think the guy in the second blurb actually makes the case for net-neutrality: “Let’s face it, telco’s and cable companies are the least innovative companies around. They only innovate to protect their turf.”
This is about bulk data rates. Should the guy owning the wire be able to assess rates based on his opinion of the individual bulk user.
The case for it is that some corps have very advantageously externalized their costs onto other parties. Facebook, Google\Youtube, and file-sharing sites are the targets. Because they demand the most they should get special higher rates.
That ignores that many telcos are hooked into content providers that compete directly with Facebook and Google.
Should we allow a competitor to set disadvantageous rates that must be paid? Google must pay the higher rates, or only be available in places served by providers uninvolved or aligned with google.
That’s extortion!
These should be hundreds of corps instead of tens. Since there so few competitors, a reasonable expectation of business conflict makes net-neutrality necessary.
Look up the history of DirectTV vs Dish et al. You could write political/spy thrillers off of that stuff.
Now imagine that level of rancor between the giant content/delivery guys when they can unilaterally determine individual fees for service.
I don’t like that the FCC can defy a court order. Congress needs to either make a law allowing an agency to regulate or just stay out of the way. The FCC has been ordered by a court to stay out of net neutrality.
I don’t want regulation on the Internet. Regulation means censorship which means lack of freedom. Anti-trust regulations are sufficient to make sure that blocking of content based on provider should not be allowed.
It’s not a big step, and possibly already in place – to develop a parallel ‘internet’ using existing technologies and a bit of ‘never you mind’ with existing technology.
VPNs etc are the current tool of trade, along with some other less well-publicised technologies, but the effort to create a ‘parallel digital universe’ is really only a matter of configuration changes to individual computers.
The bureaucrats have no real idea of what they are unleashing. Better to have the internet open and transparent than lurking under the covers. Oh – transparency is not a preferred solution. OK.
I think the providers have had a free ride for long enough. They’ve made their return on investment. It’s time they were required to lease their lines, even the last mile, to competitors – at cost. Meantime public utility commissions will nudge them to continually update the infrastructure.
“net-neutrality regulation”
That’s your problem right there.
That’s a classic oxymoron if I ever saw one.
I see a lot of people are caught up in the corporate rhetoric, and just a few who see the big picture in terms of competition and power-grabs for corporate control of the ‘net.
In such cases, government is always better, unless you want to pay $100/month for crappy DSL service. That’s what corporate control will get you.
Techies whine here, there, and everywhere that in Europe/Asia broadband is fast and cheap. Guess why? Because they’ve kept the corps out of it. Yes some of these same techies get all mushy when the assholes on Fox News tell them the big bad government is going to pull out your scrotum hairs…when quite the opposite is happening everywhere but the USA. Remember who pays those assholes to say that crap…corporate power.
In this age for the Internet, we need a Universal Service Mandate, just as we had with the telephone !!! Otherwise, the Telcos will CHERRY-PICK areas to serve and leave others out in the cold !!! Has to happen !!!
# 16 Olo Baggins of Bywater said,”…in Europe/Asia broadband is fast and cheap. Guess why? Because they’ve kept the corps out of it.”
I don’t know about everywhere, Ono, but I live in Asia and I pay about $35/month for 4Mb DSL. One nice thing, they apparently don’t know the meaning of the word cap (I get most of my movies from – err – unauthorized services). Oh, and it’s a private corp.
If you want to talk about government services, I had to get a landline for the DSL. That costs me about $4/month for unlimited local service. Oh, and 3G service on my Nexus One costs about $15/month for unlimited data. It’s miserable 3G – 2G is almost as fast and more dependable. It’s a private corp.
That linked WSJ article certainly has a negative tone to it. Here is another one covering the same issue that seems to me to be more neutral and therefor more informing:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005769.html?wpisrc=nl_tech
My concern though would be this nugget about nine paragraphs in: “The rules would prohibit Internet providers from arbitrarily blocking or slowing delivery of online services, but they could strike business deals in which a company might pay extra for faster access to consumers.” /// This certainly does set the stage for some shenanigans.
What I still don’t understand, a little help from anyone with a good explanation, is how the “providers” want faster access to their customers. I think of it as the other way around. “I” pay for my bandwidth to the providers I choose to contact. The service as desired as been paid for once all ready. Saying that, if I have/pay for a 2MB/sec service and some website offers download that I can use providing twice that but they have to pay Comcast for that service, I can see certain inequalities croping up, but that seems fair enough except that Comcast is a monopoly exclusive provider in my area. In those cases, they should be handled like any other monopoly==regulated as a utility.
So simple, or what do I have wrong?
NET NEUTRALITY is communism in disguise!
The internet can be said to be a double edged sword
Its good and bad
On the one hand tons of information at our fingertips easily searchable
People and consumers know much more
Yet on the other hands it allows for surveillance and easy lookup of information by the “authorities” and totalitarian states and worse
Have been been bribed with shiny toys in a way and manner that could be our undoing and loss of civil liberties ?
Only time will tell that is for sure
You know if Congress has a debate about a war and refuses to authorize, I think the President should just take executive action and go to war anyway.
The FCC should regulate the internet providers. We trust them to do so with phone service.
There are very few players and internet carriers have a virtual monopoly. If the FCC doesn’t regulate them, they will do very nasty things.
The AT&T CEO scares the shit out of me when he says “my pipes!” and dreams of charging Google, Netflix and such for access. They aren’t really “his pipes” — AT&T is a state sanctioned monopoly and monopolies absolutely must be regulated otherwise they get to play God.
>In 2009, Free Press commissioned a poll, released by the Harmony Institute, on net neutrality. Harmony reported that “more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government.” The poll went on to say that since “currently the public likes the way the Internet works . . . messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly” to prevent a “centrally controlled Internet.”
To that end, Free Press and other groups helped manufacture “research” on net neutrality. In 2009, for example, the FCC commissioned Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society to conduct an “independent review of existing information” for the agency in order to “lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decision making.”
You guys got played. It could be seen in John Dvorak’s initial harangues on the issue where he was led to believe the big companies were trying to buy politicians to pass a repeal of net neutrality, when it was actually the other way around.
#25 Yeah, I agree completely.
#27 You’re not A. Person. You are A. Troll.
I just don’t see it.
Prohibiting, for example, Comcast/NBC/Universal from refusing to connect their internet subscribers to, say, NetFlix or YouTube or Veoh or (100s of other content providers) is somehow “attacks on our personal freedom”?
I suppose laws criminalizing rape, murder, robbery, extortion, etc. are “attacks on our personal freedom” as well?
Oh, I see! You’re all Anarchists!
A in a circle, dudes!