Key network neutrality bill up for vote tomorrow

This is an important one to pay attention to. And that's no Microsoft hype.

We're expecting the U.S. House of Representitives will vote on the Markey-Boucher-Eschoo-Inslee network neutrality amendment tomorrow or Thursday.

I strongly support this amendment. It is gonna really be nasty if bandwidth companies can block or charge different rates to different internet players. It looks like Cox is blocking Craig's List, for instance. This is the kind of stuff we should expect if Network Neutrality isn't ensured.

Here's stories about Network Neutrality on Technorati and on Google News.

It's time to call your representative and let your wishes be heard.

What do you think? 

Comments

  1. I’m very proud that my own representative from right here on Bainbridge Island, Jay Inslee, has his name on this bill. I have written to him and to our two Senators about net neutrality in the past. Glad to see he’s listening.

  2. I’m very proud that my own representative from right here on Bainbridge Island, Jay Inslee, has his name on this bill. I have written to him and to our two Senators about net neutrality in the past. Glad to see he’s listening.

  3. Hi Robert, with due respect, the neutrality legislation you mention is much more dangerous than an absence of legislation.

    What the telcos want to do is build a higher-performance network and charge for it. I think that’s fine, and if you’ve ever signed an SLA, you’ve already paid for network prioritization.

    Simply economics dictates that some traffic should be prioritized. We should be able to say that video bits should have priority of email bits. It is fundamental to a good user experience.

    Neutrality legislation sounds benign, but it actually makes this sort of experimentation illegal. The quest for “sameness” is hard to comport with innovation.

    The truth is, the FCC already has authority to punish abuses, and they’ve used it. There is very little business case for blocking traffic, and telcos that do it will find themselves losing customers. We don’t have to like the telcos, but let’s not pass blanket laws that primarily help lawyers.

    In any case, Congress is vastly underqualified to make the call. Do you think any of the bill’s sponsors even know what a packet is? Good intentions are a poor substitute for good technology…

  4. Hi Robert, with due respect, the neutrality legislation you mention is much more dangerous than an absence of legislation.

    What the telcos want to do is build a higher-performance network and charge for it. I think that’s fine, and if you’ve ever signed an SLA, you’ve already paid for network prioritization.

    Simply economics dictates that some traffic should be prioritized. We should be able to say that video bits should have priority of email bits. It is fundamental to a good user experience.

    Neutrality legislation sounds benign, but it actually makes this sort of experimentation illegal. The quest for “sameness” is hard to comport with innovation.

    The truth is, the FCC already has authority to punish abuses, and they’ve used it. There is very little business case for blocking traffic, and telcos that do it will find themselves losing customers. We don’t have to like the telcos, but let’s not pass blanket laws that primarily help lawyers.

    In any case, Congress is vastly underqualified to make the call. Do you think any of the bill’s sponsors even know what a packet is? Good intentions are a poor substitute for good technology…

  5. Hi Robert, I know Microsoft supports this bill but I personally do not. In fact, all content companies are supporting and all telcos companies are not. So whether to support it or not does not seem to be a matter of righteousness but seems to be a matter of self interest.

    As a believer in open market, I will not want a government regulation. Let the market decides whether the world needs network neutrality or not. Let the market decides whether diffrent pririoty to different content is necessary. Let the market decides whether the end user wants to pay equally for every data-packet it sends/receives on the internet or sometime the end user can ask the content company on the other side of the wire to pay for the priority of these packets.

    You would need a network neutrality bill or something of that sort if there were only ISP. But that’s not true. There are several ISPs in every area. Even for broadband you have at least two ISPs, DSL and Cable modem.

    Tim Berners Lee said internet became popular because it was kept neutral. Well, but Tim does not realize that there was no law. It was kept neutral because that was what market demanded. If neutrality is the optimum path for future too then market will remain on this path after may be breifly experimenting. But if it is not then a law will hinder the growth of the internet by not allowing telcos to experiment and test whether something else is better.

    At this moment, we do not need to argue whether network neutrality is the right thing or not but we should argue why would open market fail to take the right optimum path. I have not seen any credible attempt to answer this question. Open market needs the number of laws be kept at necessary minimum.

  6. Hi Robert, I know Microsoft supports this bill but I personally do not. In fact, all content companies are supporting and all telcos companies are not. So whether to support it or not does not seem to be a matter of righteousness but seems to be a matter of self interest.

    As a believer in open market, I will not want a government regulation. Let the market decides whether the world needs network neutrality or not. Let the market decides whether diffrent pririoty to different content is necessary. Let the market decides whether the end user wants to pay equally for every data-packet it sends/receives on the internet or sometime the end user can ask the content company on the other side of the wire to pay for the priority of these packets.

    You would need a network neutrality bill or something of that sort if there were only ISP. But that’s not true. There are several ISPs in every area. Even for broadband you have at least two ISPs, DSL and Cable modem.

    Tim Berners Lee said internet became popular because it was kept neutral. Well, but Tim does not realize that there was no law. It was kept neutral because that was what market demanded. If neutrality is the optimum path for future too then market will remain on this path after may be breifly experimenting. But if it is not then a law will hinder the growth of the internet by not allowing telcos to experiment and test whether something else is better.

    At this moment, we do not need to argue whether network neutrality is the right thing or not but we should argue why would open market fail to take the right optimum path. I have not seen any credible attempt to answer this question. Open market needs the number of laws be kept at necessary minimum.

  7. Of course it’s self interest!

    But I don’t want the Web to turn into a “haves” and “have nots.”

    The fact that it’s all common is one of its big attractions to me.

    I can just see how it’ll be walled off and turned into a pay-as-you-go kind of thing just like cable TV.

    That’s not a world I want here.

  8. Of course it’s self interest!

    But I don’t want the Web to turn into a “haves” and “have nots.”

    The fact that it’s all common is one of its big attractions to me.

    I can just see how it’ll be walled off and turned into a pay-as-you-go kind of thing just like cable TV.

    That’s not a world I want here.

  9. I wish there were more time to dig into this. Net Neutrality SOUNDS so good, but after all it just another form of government regulation. Who’s to say that the government will always make the “fair” or “just” decision (and not be influence by Microsoft, the telcos, or no telling who else)? While it is true that the early days of the Internet were largely government funded, as it was largely composed of university, government, military lash-ups, much of the Internet infrastructure today is private, and relatively unregulated. Don’t like some particular aspect of “the net” then you can set up your own private network for some special use you have, but still have it connected to the larger network (once you work out your peering relationships, all without government “help” thank you very much).

    When I hear things like this about the government “helping” to insure this neutrality concept, I get very worried. I think of the county electrical inspector who halted my townhouse renovation project because the circuit breaker the electrician used “wasn’t on his list”, never-mind that the one that was used was both more expensive and of higher quality, we still had to spend several days sorting it all out, and keep in mind that for this “service” we have to pay additional taxes, slow down legitimate projects, and in some cases do things in a deliberately sub-optimum way to satisfy “the list”.

    How much additional head-count will the FCC (or whoever manages this issue) have to have, and how much longer will it take fiber to come to my door because of this? I don’t know that this legislation is bad, but it’s not blindingly obvious that there is a REAL problem being solved here either. The answer to every potential problem is not yet another government program. But a lot of people just don’t seem to get that.

  10. I wish there were more time to dig into this. Net Neutrality SOUNDS so good, but after all it just another form of government regulation. Who’s to say that the government will always make the “fair” or “just” decision (and not be influence by Microsoft, the telcos, or no telling who else)? While it is true that the early days of the Internet were largely government funded, as it was largely composed of university, government, military lash-ups, much of the Internet infrastructure today is private, and relatively unregulated. Don’t like some particular aspect of “the net” then you can set up your own private network for some special use you have, but still have it connected to the larger network (once you work out your peering relationships, all without government “help” thank you very much).

    When I hear things like this about the government “helping” to insure this neutrality concept, I get very worried. I think of the county electrical inspector who halted my townhouse renovation project because the circuit breaker the electrician used “wasn’t on his list”, never-mind that the one that was used was both more expensive and of higher quality, we still had to spend several days sorting it all out, and keep in mind that for this “service” we have to pay additional taxes, slow down legitimate projects, and in some cases do things in a deliberately sub-optimum way to satisfy “the list”.

    How much additional head-count will the FCC (or whoever manages this issue) have to have, and how much longer will it take fiber to come to my door because of this? I don’t know that this legislation is bad, but it’s not blindingly obvious that there is a REAL problem being solved here either. The answer to every potential problem is not yet another government program. But a lot of people just don’t seem to get that.

  11. Like Ronald Reagan said: “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

    and:

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

    Someone please give me an example of something the govt got involved in that was a resounding success.

  12. Like Ronald Reagan said: “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

    and:

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

    Someone please give me an example of something the govt got involved in that was a resounding success.

  13. The cox-craigslist issue has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. The Net Neutrality bills actually have provisions that allow for security software. The craigslist incident is purely a software bug in the security software and they certainly need to fix it, but Net Neutrality can’t do anything about it because it allows for security software.

    Without Network Neutrality, the FCC under Chairman Michael Powell (appointed by the same party that is now being demonized for opposing certain provisions of Net neutrality regulations) slapped down Madison River communications along with a $15,000 fine in March of 2005! Net neutrality didn’t exist and it certainly played no role in the FCC slap down of Madison’s monopolistic practices.

    We don’t need draconian overreaching regulations that ban any form of traffic prioritization. There is nothing wrong with having “best effort” and “priority service” because that’s exactly how free markets work. What shouldn’t be ok is “no effort” (blocked service) or “slow effort” (where an ISP goes out of their way to slow someone down). That’s sensible Network Neutrality, and we don’t need the scare stories.

    More on Net Neutrality here:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=242

    This comes from someone who actually use to configure routers for a living.

  14. The cox-craigslist issue has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. The Net Neutrality bills actually have provisions that allow for security software. The craigslist incident is purely a software bug in the security software and they certainly need to fix it, but Net Neutrality can’t do anything about it because it allows for security software.

    Without Network Neutrality, the FCC under Chairman Michael Powell (appointed by the same party that is now being demonized for opposing certain provisions of Net neutrality regulations) slapped down Madison River communications along with a $15,000 fine in March of 2005! Net neutrality didn’t exist and it certainly played no role in the FCC slap down of Madison’s monopolistic practices.

    We don’t need draconian overreaching regulations that ban any form of traffic prioritization. There is nothing wrong with having “best effort” and “priority service” because that’s exactly how free markets work. What shouldn’t be ok is “no effort” (blocked service) or “slow effort” (where an ISP goes out of their way to slow someone down). That’s sensible Network Neutrality, and we don’t need the scare stories.

    More on Net Neutrality here:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=242

    This comes from someone who actually use to configure routers for a living.

  15. Robert, in that case you are not a believer in open market. Because why the absence of bill divides the network into have and haven’t. Not that the value of the internet is more to the people who have, if there are more people who have and less who haven’t. So an open market would actually try to decrease the numbers of haven’t by providing them cheaper services and charging the premium from certain kind of customer base.

    In Net Neutraility, may be these “have-nots” won’t even get a cheap service.

    In the end a need of regulation must be proved by showing that the open market is incapable of reaching a desirable state without the regulation! Otherwise we all could move to china and enjoy Communism there.

    So the pre-condition I am asking is not whether Net should be neutral or not. But it is to demonstrate to me that the open market is not capable of reaching a healthy situation. Give me some arguments. After all it is open market principals which made the rich countrues rich.

  16. Robert, in that case you are not a believer in open market. Because why the absence of bill divides the network into have and haven’t. Not that the value of the internet is more to the people who have, if there are more people who have and less who haven’t. So an open market would actually try to decrease the numbers of haven’t by providing them cheaper services and charging the premium from certain kind of customer base.

    In Net Neutraility, may be these “have-nots” won’t even get a cheap service.

    In the end a need of regulation must be proved by showing that the open market is incapable of reaching a desirable state without the regulation! Otherwise we all could move to china and enjoy Communism there.

    So the pre-condition I am asking is not whether Net should be neutral or not. But it is to demonstrate to me that the open market is not capable of reaching a healthy situation. Give me some arguments. After all it is open market principals which made the rich countrues rich.

  17. @10 I’m not sure Scoble is insightful or knowledgable enough to answer your questions. The answers on this issue will likely be culled from any MS PR releases he gets.

  18. @10 I’m not sure Scoble is insightful or knowledgable enough to answer your questions. The answers on this issue will likely be culled from any MS PR releases he gets.

  19. oh my god! I just re-read this post! “Support this ammendment”???? You do know the difference between a bill and an amendment, right, Scoble? If not, I think my kids have a Schoolhouse Rock video you can borrow that explains it. ;-)

  20. oh my god! I just re-read this post! “Support this ammendment”???? You do know the difference between a bill and an amendment, right, Scoble? If not, I think my kids have a Schoolhouse Rock video you can borrow that explains it. ;-)

  21. I have gone back and forth on this topic.

    I think this bill is a good starting point to correct some of the inequities faced by the smaller players in the market. The internet should remain a free market; network providers should not be able to regulate whose traffic has a higher priority. This will lead to another problem: increasing infrastructure.

    The cost of increasing the infrastructure of the internet is the bad side of the bill. It is bad for the end-users, either enterprise or personal. Companies (ISPs/network providers) will have to offset the costs of upgrades to the end-users. This bill will increase the cost of connectivity for both the enterprise and personal users.

    I would hate to see internet access become luxury to some people once the cost of it rises dramatically.

  22. I have gone back and forth on this topic.

    I think this bill is a good starting point to correct some of the inequities faced by the smaller players in the market. The internet should remain a free market; network providers should not be able to regulate whose traffic has a higher priority. This will lead to another problem: increasing infrastructure.

    The cost of increasing the infrastructure of the internet is the bad side of the bill. It is bad for the end-users, either enterprise or personal. Companies (ISPs/network providers) will have to offset the costs of upgrades to the end-users. This bill will increase the cost of connectivity for both the enterprise and personal users.

    I would hate to see internet access become luxury to some people once the cost of it rises dramatically.

  23. dmad – the author is correct and you are wrong. The issue of net neutrality comes today in the form of two different seperate amendments to the overlying H.R. 5252 bill, which by itself does not have anything about net neutrality it in. The author is telling people if you support net neutality, to then support Markey amendment.

  24. dmad – the author is correct and you are wrong. The issue of net neutrality comes today in the form of two different seperate amendments to the overlying H.R. 5252 bill, which by itself does not have anything about net neutrality it in. The author is telling people if you support net neutality, to then support Markey amendment.

  25. @8 “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

    That quote was a crock when it was made and is still a crock today. There are a lot of high-caliber people in government who are there because they want to serve the public and make a difference. Some people want more out a career than simply making a buck or serving the interest of a small group of shareholders.

    Disclaimer: I am not employed in government. I simply respect those who are.

  26. @8 “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

    That quote was a crock when it was made and is still a crock today. There are a lot of high-caliber people in government who are there because they want to serve the public and make a difference. Some people want more out a career than simply making a buck or serving the interest of a small group of shareholders.

    Disclaimer: I am not employed in government. I simply respect those who are.

  27. The ability to leverage a defacto or legislated vehicle for competition is a decent idea at the core, but in principal, I would prefer that the carriers have the ability to segment their service, as long as they make it CLEAR how much “full service general bandwidth” you are buying. By that I mean I can buy the “reserved premium bandwidth” for specific services as a QoS aspect for those services, but I want an ability to pay for full non-degraded bandwidth to the general net as a specific item if that’s the case. Otherwise, I’m paying for Internet access, done to the best of the provider’s ability, not hidden in tiering. In general, be explicit in the offering, and the bill/amendment doesn’t really enable any innovation by the providers, which is a problem.

    If you parallel the OS to the pipe, this is like fully opened APIs in Windows being a defacto monopoly, but that hurts Microsoft from enabling tigher integration and protecting IP and monetary investment in infrastructure, so which is the right way to go?

  28. The ability to leverage a defacto or legislated vehicle for competition is a decent idea at the core, but in principal, I would prefer that the carriers have the ability to segment their service, as long as they make it CLEAR how much “full service general bandwidth” you are buying. By that I mean I can buy the “reserved premium bandwidth” for specific services as a QoS aspect for those services, but I want an ability to pay for full non-degraded bandwidth to the general net as a specific item if that’s the case. Otherwise, I’m paying for Internet access, done to the best of the provider’s ability, not hidden in tiering. In general, be explicit in the offering, and the bill/amendment doesn’t really enable any innovation by the providers, which is a problem.

    If you parallel the OS to the pipe, this is like fully opened APIs in Windows being a defacto monopoly, but that hurts Microsoft from enabling tigher integration and protecting IP and monetary investment in infrastructure, so which is the right way to go?

  29. @17. Then why do the “smart ones” ultimately end up going back into private business.

    Again, looking for an example of a successful program in which the govt was involved.

  30. @17. Then why do the “smart ones” ultimately end up going back into private business.

    Again, looking for an example of a successful program in which the govt was involved.

  31. You haven’t addressed the fear mongering on Coxs and Craigslist Robert. Why are you fear mongering with Craigslist? That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. You really want to ban all forms of tiered services and prioritization? Would you ban Priority mail service or FedEX priority service? This is what you’re supporting. I don’t care what Google or Microsoft or EBay is supporting, that’s in their own self interest. I don’t want to live in a soviet state.

  32. You haven’t addressed the fear mongering on Coxs and Craigslist Robert. Why are you fear mongering with Craigslist? That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. You really want to ban all forms of tiered services and prioritization? Would you ban Priority mail service or FedEX priority service? This is what you’re supporting. I don’t care what Google or Microsoft or EBay is supporting, that’s in their own self interest. I don’t want to live in a soviet state.

  33. [...] It’s big. Microsoft is talking about it. Google is talking about it. It’s highly controversial and there are people on both sides of the argument. And since you’re reading this, it will definitely affect you. It’s almost scaring me. IANAL (I am not a lawyer). I don’t know what to think. But some things to consider… [...]

  34. Scoble, you’re ducking George Ou and others calling you out for spreading bogus Cox/Craigslist FUD, while rambling on with some non sequitur about “seeing the kind of stuff we get with Fox News.” What does that even *mean*?

    I think the internet’s working pretty well for me right now, the last thing I want is people falling for this silly propaganda and begging the freaking government to meddle with it in the government’s typically incompetent way.

  35. Scoble, you’re ducking George Ou and others calling you out for spreading bogus Cox/Craigslist FUD, while rambling on with some non sequitur about “seeing the kind of stuff we get with Fox News.” What does that even *mean*?

    I think the internet’s working pretty well for me right now, the last thing I want is people falling for this silly propaganda and begging the freaking government to meddle with it in the government’s typically incompetent way.

  36. @23–You make a good point that the Internet is working pretty well right now. I would hate to see the government meddle with it and break it in the process. By the same token, however, I don’t want to see the ISPs meddle with and break it. If there is a way to prevent that without government intervention, I’m all for it.

    I don’t trust the open market to control this. Bandwidth availabilty/cost in the US is poor compared to Europe and Asia. In many rural areas there is only one ISP.

  37. @23–You make a good point that the Internet is working pretty well right now. I would hate to see the government meddle with it and break it in the process. By the same token, however, I don’t want to see the ISPs meddle with and break it. If there is a way to prevent that without government intervention, I’m all for it.

    I don’t trust the open market to control this. Bandwidth availabilty/cost in the US is poor compared to Europe and Asia. In many rural areas there is only one ISP.

  38. Here is the truth about Net neutrality and the Markey amendment:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243

    From page 2:
    “Everyone will want priority service since the Government has declared it free but NO ONE will offer it because there is zero incentive to do so.”

    From page 3:
    “Sensible limits on prioritization without an outright ban strikes the balance between free market economics and the need for a healthy information highway.”

  39. Here is the truth about Net neutrality and the Markey amendment:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243

    From page 2:
    “Everyone will want priority service since the Government has declared it free but NO ONE will offer it because there is zero incentive to do so.”

    From page 3:
    “Sensible limits on prioritization without an outright ban strikes the balance between free market economics and the need for a healthy information highway.”

  40. The U.S. House of Representatives rejected Net neutrality on the Evening of June 8 by a a 269-152 margin, along party lines.

    The House Republicans rejected the Democrats pro net neutrality ammendment

    Here are a list of bills:
    news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.ht

  41. The U.S. House of Representatives rejected Net neutrality on the Evening of June 8 by a a 269-152 margin, along party lines.

    The House Republicans rejected the Democrats pro net neutrality ammendment

    Here are a list of bills:
    news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.ht

  42. Robert,
    I’m often amazed at the blind trust many of your readers place in the free market. They view it as the source of all things fine and good, and the epicentre of all innovation. It has a deity status which it doesn’t always deserve.

    Perhaps it would be good if you could remind people a little of the history of the Internet. Developed as a government funded defence project, rejected by AT&T and co as unworkable, made accessable by a researcher working at a government funded nuclear research institution.

    It would be great if you could do an interview with Lawrence Lessig from Stanford about the role of regulation in the Internet’s development and maintenance.

    The US government has a responsiblity to the world in how the Internet is run, and I would hate the future of the Internet to be shaped by the demands of the US telcos and the entertainment industry. If the bill was in the interest of the “free market” howcome telcos have been spending millions and millions lobby for this?

    I’ve written more here. http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/gutenberg-revisitednetwork-neutrality-and-copyright/

  43. Robert,
    I’m often amazed at the blind trust many of your readers place in the free market. They view it as the source of all things fine and good, and the epicentre of all innovation. It has a deity status which it doesn’t always deserve.

    Perhaps it would be good if you could remind people a little of the history of the Internet. Developed as a government funded defence project, rejected by AT&T and co as unworkable, made accessable by a researcher working at a government funded nuclear research institution.

    It would be great if you could do an interview with Lawrence Lessig from Stanford about the role of regulation in the Internet’s development and maintenance.

    The US government has a responsiblity to the world in how the Internet is run, and I would hate the future of the Internet to be shaped by the demands of the US telcos and the entertainment industry. If the bill was in the interest of the “free market” howcome telcos have been spending millions and millions lobby for this?

    I’ve written more here. http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/gutenberg-revisitednetwork-neutrality-and-copyright/

  44. I believe in free market yet there is so much conflictig information how do you separate the real from the hysterical?

    The net is unkown to most people who really don’t understand it at all

  45. I believe in free market yet there is so much conflictig information how do you separate the real from the hysterical?

    The net is unkown to most people who really don’t understand it at all

  46. Their no way that any one can justify this as why would any one would like their broadband connection to be like a pay as you go line or like cable tv its none sense and dislike their thoughts just them saying that its more money for them whats this world coming to

  47. Their no way that any one can justify this as why would any one would like their broadband connection to be like a pay as you go line or like cable tv its none sense and dislike their thoughts just them saying that its more money for them whats this world coming to

  48. From the uk i always look to the US for new business trnds and oppurtunities and find that the british follow suit on most major decisions. If a company can restricted the bandwidth and hand it out to the priveliged or corporate systems then there is a bleak future.

    Andy

  49. From the uk i always look to the US for new business trnds and oppurtunities and find that the british follow suit on most major decisions. If a company can restricted the bandwidth and hand it out to the priveliged or corporate systems then there is a bleak future.

    Andy

  50. Personally I find the idea of ‘prioritising’ bandwidth rather a scary one, I love the fact that the internet gives the ‘small guy’ the same playing field as the ‘big guy’ in lots (but not all) areas. Remember how difficult it was for a small business or shop to get a worldwide presence 10 or 15 years ago? I would hate to see large corperations getting even more of an upper hand by being able to afford better bandwidth. This really would be a shame IMHO.

  51. Personally I find the idea of ‘prioritising’ bandwidth rather a scary one, I love the fact that the internet gives the ‘small guy’ the same playing field as the ‘big guy’ in lots (but not all) areas. Remember how difficult it was for a small business or shop to get a worldwide presence 10 or 15 years ago? I would hate to see large corperations getting even more of an upper hand by being able to afford better bandwidth. This really would be a shame IMHO.

  52. If we do not assure that the fat cats are blocked from doing this it will spell and end to the great financial benefits of the internet to all.

    The only ones making money will be the chosen few, and their advertisers.

    Everyone should contact their members of congress and scream about this one.

  53. If we do not assure that the fat cats are blocked from doing this it will spell and end to the great financial benefits of the internet to all.

    The only ones making money will be the chosen few, and their advertisers.

    Everyone should contact their members of congress and scream about this one.

  54. I don’t support government regulation either, but when big business has monopolies and we are dependent on them, then we need someone to make big business toe the line.

  55. I don’t support government regulation either, but when big business has monopolies and we are dependent on them, then we need someone to make big business toe the line.

  56. My question is how do they really expect to monitor the internet for mom and pop people, its seems they would really spend our tax dollars for something that REALLY matters..

  57. My question is how do they really expect to monitor the internet for mom and pop people, its seems they would really spend our tax dollars for something that REALLY matters..

  58. Having experienced both regulated and deregulated services the only logical conclusion is dereg because it allows consumer choice this is the only logical way forward and stops any one company from ruling the roost so to speak.

  59. Having experienced both regulated and deregulated services the only logical conclusion is dereg because it allows consumer choice this is the only logical way forward and stops any one company from ruling the roost so to speak.

  60. Exactly who is it who is letting us believe it’s a free market, that’s what I’d like to know? Post back please Scobleizer…

  61. Exactly who is it who is letting us believe it’s a free market, that’s what I’d like to know? Post back please Scobleizer…

  62. This is scary stuff guys, I live in Australia so can’t contact a rep but i do know that whenever something good comes along the fat cats wanna own and or control it.

    We can’t let that happen with the Internet!!

  63. This is scary stuff guys, I live in Australia so can’t contact a rep but i do know that whenever something good comes along the fat cats wanna own and or control it.

    We can’t let that happen with the Internet!!

  64. Net Neutrality

    2006 saw some significant strides in our fight to preserve Internet freedom, a.k.a. net neutrality. In Congress we stopped a flawed telecom reform bill from becoming law, and at the FCC we won a major net neutrality concession from AT&T as part of its merger agreement with BellSouth.

    Telecommunications companies aren’t going to give up that easily, however. They want to change the great freewheeling information superhighway that you’ve grown to love into a privatized, tightly-controlled medium.

    Common Cause firmly believes in net neutrality — the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs).

    Net neutrality is the reason this democratic medium has grown exponentially, fueled innovation and altered how we communicate. We must make certain that for-profit interests do not destroy the democratic culture of the web.

    We’re ready – with your help – to fight the telcom giants in the halls of Congress, at state houses around the country and at the FCC. We need to push back hard at the telecom lobbyists who want to write Internet freedom out of the law.

    We need your help. Right now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for public opinion on net neutrality. Tell the FCC that the principle of net neutrality needs to be protected so that Internet service providers can’t act as gatekeepers.

  65. Net Neutrality

    2006 saw some significant strides in our fight to preserve Internet freedom, a.k.a. net neutrality. In Congress we stopped a flawed telecom reform bill from becoming law, and at the FCC we won a major net neutrality concession from AT&T as part of its merger agreement with BellSouth.

    Telecommunications companies aren’t going to give up that easily, however. They want to change the great freewheeling information superhighway that you’ve grown to love into a privatized, tightly-controlled medium.

    Common Cause firmly believes in net neutrality — the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs).

    Net neutrality is the reason this democratic medium has grown exponentially, fueled innovation and altered how we communicate. We must make certain that for-profit interests do not destroy the democratic culture of the web.

    We’re ready – with your help – to fight the telcom giants in the halls of Congress, at state houses around the country and at the FCC. We need to push back hard at the telecom lobbyists who want to write Internet freedom out of the law.

    We need your help. Right now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for public opinion on net neutrality. Tell the FCC that the principle of net neutrality needs to be protected so that Internet service providers can’t act as gatekeepers.

  66. Its just a matter of time before it reaches us here in Australian, we are never far behind. These things spread like wild fire.

  67. Its just a matter of time before it reaches us here in Australian, we are never far behind. These things spread like wild fire.

  68. i don’t support gov’t regulation either, but sometimes i think they need to step-in when things get out of hand

  69. i don’t support gov’t regulation either, but sometimes i think they need to step-in when things get out of hand

  70. To tell you the truth, the bandwidth companies already charing legs and arms for the internet connection. If we allow them to block or charge different rate based on bandwidth, there will definitely be chaos. Who is to say that I am using a lots of bandwidth just playing or downloading thousands of SPAMS. Personally, I think, no one should be charged anything for the internet. Internet is a communication between computer to computer not computer to BILLION DOLLAR MONEY SUCKING CORPORATION AND COMPANIES.

  71. To tell you the truth, the bandwidth companies already charing legs and arms for the internet connection. If we allow them to block or charge different rate based on bandwidth, there will definitely be chaos. Who is to say that I am using a lots of bandwidth just playing or downloading thousands of SPAMS. Personally, I think, no one should be charged anything for the internet. Internet is a communication between computer to computer not computer to BILLION DOLLAR MONEY SUCKING CORPORATION AND COMPANIES.

  72. I generally believe in open markets, however the network neutrality legislation may be useful. I stll need to do more research before I know which side to come out on.

  73. I generally believe in open markets, however the network neutrality legislation may be useful. I stll need to do more research before I know which side to come out on.

  74. I’m glad something was being done. I can’t believe we need the government to start regulating this, but it seems to go with everything these days. Nothing is not incapable of being abused.

  75. I’m glad something was being done. I can’t believe we need the government to start regulating this, but it seems to go with everything these days. Nothing is not incapable of being abused.