Common Cause's perspective on Net Neutrality

Common Cause is a group that strongly desires Network Neutrality. In an article I found, the group stated that Net Neutrality was already being lost to big companies such as Verizon, NARAL, Comcast, and the worst-to-come, AT&T. They also say that while certain politicians are trying to work towards a completely open and free Internet, the subtle transition away from Net Neutrality may, in fact, change their opinion on the topic seeing as it benefits them more than it does the average US citizen. Needless to say, that these politicians will then try less to stop the telephone and cable companies whom provide internet to the people, and could change the outcome of Net Neutrality's legislation for the worse (in terms of the American people). If you wish to aid this powerful group in their strive for a free and open internet, which they hope and need so they can beat the FCC and get Net Neutrality, please visit: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQ1wG&b=1421497

Virgin Media is putting Net Neutrality to the test

In the UK, Virgin Media is currently in the process of designing a super-fast broadband service that will allow the delivery of informative Internet to its consumers at an unbelievable rate. This will be done sometime in the late 2009 year and possibly perfected in 2010. This new service is designed to not only deliver fast, but to block torrent sites and other P2P (peer-to-peer) services. Should this service go according to plan, this blogger says, "Will cause the ultimate challenge of how to keep the Internet 'neutral' to be lost...FOREVER! (DUN DUN DUUUUN)" However, there is one small, but at the same time, large aspect that works against Virgin Media's "No-longer Neutral Net" system, and that is the cost of which it will take in order for consumers to use the service. The article reads that it will cost consumers 51 pounds! (about 72 dollars!) per month to use this service, which means that Virgin Media will either have to lower its prices and give a less promising product, or stay as it is and hope and pray that the majority of the world's population becomes exceedingly rich by 2009/2010. Either way, this allows for more debates on whether or not to make the Internet neutral to all or not.

Information found at: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2008/12/17/net-neutrality-to-be-tested-by-virgin-media/

Summary of the Open Internet Coalition's Letter to Co-Chairs of Obama's Transition Project

This letter was written by the Open Internet Coalition to the Obama-Biden Transition Project in order to express the Coalition's pursuit of keeping the internet fast, open and accessible to all Americans. Highlighted in this blog are the four main points the Coalition touched on in their letter.

1. Appoint a new Chairman and a new Commisioner for the Federal Communications Commission that support strong enforcement and promotion of open Internet principle (Net Neutrality). Obama will be able to reform the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality by means of new plans and laws that will restrict providers from excessive pricing of consumers in order to block some sites and enable others

2. Appoint leaders at the Federal Trade Commission and the department of Justice who understand the importance of promoting an open Internet through vigorous use of pro-competition and consumer protection laws.

3. Require the chief Technology officer and the United States Trade Representative to promote open internet policies at home and abroad.

4. Support legislation in Congress that protects the Open Internet by prohibiting unreasonable discrimination by network operators


Any information regarding the Open Internet Coalition's motives, please write to:

400 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 585
Washington, D.C. 20001
Openinternetcoalition.com

History of Net Neutrality

The term "Net Neutrality" is relatively new, but the idea was developed around the age of the telegram back in 1860, and earlier! Telegrams were developed so that they were routed "equally" without discriminating the information being transfered from point a to point b. This network is called the "end-to-end neutral" network.

Telegrams and phone services are carriers under U.S. laws, which means that they are considered useable to public utililties and overseen by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in order to ensure fair access and pricing for use of said devices. Technically, though, the Internet is considered to be under U.S. law as an informational service, not a service of the telecommunications department, thus not subject to the "common carrier" regulations. Because of the Internet's high speed data links, the Internet is not regulated by the common carrier regulations, but because it uses the phone lines, it is qualified and subject to the common carrier regulations.

However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as Informatoinal Services, not Telecommunications Services, thus replacing the well-known common carrier regulations on it. This is wha sparked the initial and lasting debates over whether or not the ISP's should be able to offer different systems for the retrieving of the various Internet services/go against Net Neutrality in order to have the Internet consumer pay to use a service and download and retrieve Internet faster.

Information found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_US

summary by karateman

More on the Net Neutrality Debate as well as information dealing with the bandwidth of video

This story was originally published on July 7, 2008.

The Internet is the greatest technical development of the 20th century, (I think we can all agree witht that) and its open competition model has been the envy of other market sectors. Internet advances are being crushed by monopolistic carriers who are more concerned with censoring content than delivering services to customers. Those desperate statements sum up the positions of the two sides squaring off in an increasingly contentious debate about the Internet's future.

On one side of the debate are Internet service providers (ISPs), which are trying to build viable business models for delivering their services in a rapidly evolving marketplace. On the other side are watchdog groups who feel that the carriers' plans run counter to the Internet's primary mission.

One thing that I've come to realize about these two sides is that a major role in determining the "champion" is how effectively videos will load. This is because video requires loads of bandwidth!!!

Video applications such as online gaming apps take up more bandwidth than simpler applications such as e-mail. In addition, a growing number of carriers are delivering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services that require clean connections from their starting points to their end points, thus making the file significantly larger.

Consequently, carriers have been experimenting with Quality of Service (QoS) features, which prioritize different types of traffic. In such cases, priority is given or taken from one application to improve the performance of another. In addition, what carriers charge customers varies with these services. In some cases, ISPs want to charge more for the extra bandwidth needed for video content from sites such as YouTube compared with the textual information from an e-mail service.

Net neutrality advocates view such practices as discriminatory, and want to make them unlawful. They feel that every user should have the ability to use whatever service he or she desires without any additional fees.


Information found at: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/The-Still-Simmering-Net-Neutrality-Debate-65270.html

In this article, it tells about how the two sides debating over whether or not Net Neutrality should be allowed or disallowed. It comments on how each one will have its ups and downs with the people of America and told about the "Ultimate Arbiter" as I like to call it. This judgmental factor is the use of video clips (with optional voice input) and the size of which they require to effectively download onto one's computer. Depending on how well these download and how patient/desperate people are to have them will depend on whether or not Net Neutrality will pass and how profitable the Net Neutrality business will actually be.

U.S. Congress recent actions towards Net Neutrality...

The U.S. Congress will push for net neutrality legislation next year, even though the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has acted against broadband providers that it found to block or slow Web content, an adviser to a senior U.S. senator said Thursday.
While the FCC has addressed what it saw as net neutrality violations on a case-by-case basis in recent years, a law passed by Congress would provide customers, investors, Web-based companies and broadband providers with certainty about the rules of the road, said Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel for Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and cosponsor of a bill introduced in 2007 that would have created a net neutrality law.

"We definitely think legislation is necessary," said Wellings, speaking at a University of Nebraska College of Law forum on telecom law in Washington, D.C.

AT&T would prefer that the FCC continue to act on a case-by-case basis on net neutrality issues, said James Cicconi, the telecom's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs. After a heated debate for a couple of years, there's been a consensus forming around net neutrality, with many broadband providers now acknowledging that customers want an open Internet and many net neutrality advocates acknowledging that network providers need to manage their networks for the good of customers, he said.

Information found at: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111308-congress-to-push-for-net.html

In this article, Congress is pushing to pass the Net Neutrality law for 2009, even though the FCC found that there are already slow connections and those who have violated the current (temporary) Net Neutrality bill currently in place. Thus, the Congress began to work on these violation cases one-by-one to give each case their full attention. They also planned to, by laying down a real, ludgitimate law that will provide everyone who uses the internet what they can and cannot do. It then proceeds to tell about how AT&T wants the FCC to continue with their current case-by-case way of dealing with cases. Also, numerous broadband providers have been debating heavily on whether or not to provide internet customers with a free internet. They have finally started to conceive the fact that customers desire an open and free internet and that most of the advocates say that its high time that the broadband providers start thinking more about the good of the people, instead of their own, profitable good.

Japan sets up panel to study Net Neutrality

TOKYO - The Japanese government on Wednesday set up a panel to discuss Internet network neutrality -- a concept that has stirred heated debate in the United States -- and study how the surging popularity of free file-sharing services such as YouTube.com is impacting the infrastructure.

In the U.S., Internet companies like Google Inc. want lawmakers to bar providers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Inc. from charging Web users to guarantee quality and offer services that have faster download speeds for uses such as movies.
The providers have also criticised Web firms as "free riders" of their heavily-invested networks, while they say they have no intention of blocking consumers' access to public Internet sites.

Japanese network providers also face pressure to increase investments as Web traffic soared in the past year with more people getting music and video clips from other Internet users' computers, rather than watching them via online streaming.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said it will call for inputs from companies such as Google, Yahoo Japan Corp. and Apple Computer Inc., as well as phone operators and television networks, and aim to compile a final report on the subject by July 2007.
Earlier this year, Japan's ministry put together a report on future competition policy in the industry, in which it made some recommendations on the Internet neutrality issue.
The report gave suggestions such as charging extra fees to heavy Internet users to lighten the cost burden on network providers, while making sure that end-users and content providers would be able to access the network freely.

Information found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15727226/

So, in this article, it tells about how Tokyo, Japan has set up, obviously, a panel to look into and study Net Neutrality in the United States because the Japanese are rapidly downloading music and videos from the internet and "off the beaten path" web sites instead of using the main Japanese online streaming. The Japanese government sees that Net Neutrality could harm the industry of its countries infrastructure and in an attempt to prevent it, may look into Net Neutrality.

CRTC decision on net neutrality just a first step, not the final word...

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission last week issued its much-anticipated ruling on the legality of Internet throttling, a controversial practice employed by some Internet service providers that reduces speeds for certain applications.
The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which represents smaller, independent ISPs, filed a complaint with the CRTC over Bell's practices earlier this year.
The commission denied CAIP's complaint, ruling that Bell treated all of its customers -- retail and wholesale -- in the same throttled manner.

There is little doubt that Bell comes out the winner in this round as the CRTC sided with the company on most key issues.

It agreed that there was network congestion due to peer-to-peer usage and that Bell was therefore acting reasonably by implementing some network management techniques to address the congestion concerns. Moreover, it rejected fears that Bell's actions were motivated by a desire to undermine competition and it concluded that the mere act of reducing Internet speeds does not rise to the level of controlling content (a violation of the Telecommunications Act).
While the CRTC's decision to permit Bell's throttling practices is a disappointment to the independent ISPs and net neutrality advocates, the decision is not a total loss for them since the commission made a clear commitment to address the issue of net neutrality and network management in a formal proceeding in July 2009.

In fact, after Bell issued a press release claiming that the decision "confirmed that network operators are in the best position to determine how to operate their networks effectively and efficiently, to allow fair and proportionate use of the Internet by all users," Len Katz, the vice-chair of the CRTC, quickly responded by cautioning that "someone told me Bell put out a press release that said the commission upheld its position that network management practices are a fundamental right of theirs. That's not what we said at all."

The CRTC decision is therefore not the final word on net neutrality in Canada, but rather the first word on it. Moreover, should the commission come to the conclusion that downgrading some applications is consistent with Canadian law, there is the likelihood of growing calls from within Parliament to change the law (New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, the author of a private member's bill on net neutrality, was quick to condemn the CRTC decision).

Indeed, it is important not to lose sight of how much has changed in the past year. In the fall of 2007, net neutrality was viewed as a fringe issue in Canada without much political traction. In the span of 12 months, there has been a major CRTC case, the Angus bill, a rally on Parliament Hill, a more vocal business community supporting net neutrality, and a gradual shift of this issue into the political mainstream.

In the United States, the change has been even more dramatic -- a Federal Communications Commission ruling on the throttling activities that aggressively ordered a cable provider to stop certain practices, proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress, and a president-elect who has been outspoken on the need to preserve net neutrality.

Information found at http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=793266e5-08c7-4935-9ca8-a0a6c3b8525a

This article tells about how the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruled that Net Neutrality was not to be had in the Great White North. So, initially, companies could in fact slow down access to other internet providers's sites if not paid their initial payment. However, the Bell company began to institute congestion-control methods to address the slow connection problems instituted by the Net Neutrality Law passed. This caused the CAIP and CRTC to react and basically told Bell that under current Net Neutrality Law, it was not allowed to do what it was doing. However, he was allowed to continue his throttling process, which disappointed independent ISP's, and has led the way for more controversy and debates regarding Net Neutrality in Canada.

Is government regulation truly needed in order to maintain net neutrality?

The debate over net neutrality typically pits proponents of an open Internet defined by an end-to-end architecture against defenders of more selective, less egalitarian routing by service providers. But in "The Durable Internet," a paper released Wednesday by the libertarian Cato Institute, Tim Lee argues that the "openists" and the "deregulationists" both rely on the same mistaken assumption: that the Internet's neutral structure won't survive without government intervention.
Lee, a Cato adjunct scholar and occasional Ars contributor (full disclosure: also an old friend), agrees with neutrality boosters that the case for "network discrimination" is "underwhelming." He makes short work of the notion that bandwidth-intensive sites or applications are somehow free-riding on downstream pipes, explaining how the "network of consensual interconnection [peering] agreements that bind the Internet together ensure that each Internet user pays a fair share of the total costs of running the network." And he argues that packet discrimination is unlikely to be either effective or economical as a means of managing network congestion or guaranteeing quality-of-service for low-latency applications like VoIP telephony.

Information found at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081114-is-government-regulation-needed-to-ensure-net-neutrality.html

So, Lee believes that if the government does not keep tabs on the internet, the companies in control of the internet's "Net Neutralitism" will eventually go out of whack. Thus, he believes that in order to keep the internet providers in check, that the government is absolutely needed 100% of the time to oversee and supervise the companies who are charging people to use their specific type of internet providings.

The US could possible outlaw "throttling" when it comes to Net Neutrality

The New Year will see a bill introduced to the US senate that would enshrine network neutrality into law, barring internet service providers (ISPs) from filtering the parts of the web their customers can access.

Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, says such a law is essential to prevent ISPs from discriminating against certain internet content in their own interest.

The net neutrality fight pits ISPs like AT&T and Verizon against content companies like Google and Apple. ISPs say they need freedom to manage the ever-growing traffic on their networks without government interference.

But content companies say that ISPs hold too power much to block or slow down traffic as they wish. For example, by slowing down bandwidth-hogging movie downloads, or preventing users accessing certain content for commercial reasons.

Information found at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16041-us-net-neutrality-law-could-outlaw-throttling.html

So, basically, this segment says that a bill is trying to pass in the Senate that will allow Net Neutrality to become law. However, there are groups and companies that are trying to fight the ISP's and allow for a truly free and un-interrupted use of the internet.

DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE: How do they feel about Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality, consumer privacy issues such as regulation over electronic medical records, and patent reform, is being talked about amongst the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is the most up-to-date (as of right now) I could find using the Google News section.

Kay Hagan, the incoming Democratic senator for North Carolina, touted Net neutrality on the campaign trail.
In the House, look for Conyers and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Telecommunications and the Internet panel in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to take the lead. On the Senate side, senators like Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) are likely to remain focused on tech-related issues.
Some new members are expected to bolster the Democrats' commitment to tech issues, "particularly Mark Warner who is very technology savvy," said Atkinson. Warner, the former Democratic governor of Virginia, was elected to fill the seat of retiring Republican Senator John Warner.
After the election, Computer and Communications Industry Association President Ed Black praised the new Democratic senators for their tech-friendly platforms, noting that Mark Udall of Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina both pledged their support for Net neutrality during their campaigns.
Some uncertainties exist on the tech policy front, like who will chair the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force since Chair Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) lost his seat last week. A senior aide to the task force said Republican leadership has yet to determine who will chair the group, but its agenda will remain focused on issues like broadband deployment, immigration reform, and securing U.S. competitiveness in the global high-tech marketplace.
Additionally, some Democratic agenda items, which call for more spending, and presumably higher taxes to fund those projects, could fall by the wayside if moderate Democrats insist on maintaining a pay-go system.

Information found at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10095382-38.html

Ok, so, this says that the Democratic Senators support Network Neutrality largely and hope to see it developing more in The States as time progresses. They see Net Neutrality as a way that, if successfully integrated into the USA, will lead to a completely reformed marketplace that will spread to the farthest corners of the Earth, and lead to technological advances and additional reform.

How does Sen./President Barack Obama feel about Net Neutrality?

It's interesting with Obama. I was actually able to locate a speech he gave on the topic of Net Neutrality found by a Podcast. Here goes:

"Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Thursday, June 8th, 2006.
The topic today is net neutrality. The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.
Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.
So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality. In the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee reached different conclusions on network neutrality. Judiciary Committee members voted to protect net neutrality and commerce voted with the Bells and cable. That debate is going to hit the House floor this Friday. In the Senate, Senators Snowe and Dorgan are leading the fight for net neutrality and I've joined in that effort. Senator Inouye, the ranking Democrat of the Commerce Committee, has joined us in this effort as well and he's working with Senator Stevens to put strong network neutrality into any Senate bill that comes before us. There is widespread support among consumer groups, leading academics and the most innovative internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, in favor of net neutrality. And part of the reason for that is companies like Google and Yahoo might never have gotten started had they not been in a position to easily access the internet and do so on the same terms as the big corporate companies that were interested in making money on the internet.
I know if you are listening to this podcast that you are going to take an intense interest in this issue as well. Congress is going to need to hear your voice because the Bell and cable companies are going to be dedicating millions of dollars to defeating network neutrality. So I'll keep you updated on this important issue and I look forward to talking to you guys again next week. Bye-bye."

Speech found on http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/

Obama feels that we should allow the internet to remain free to all to access the same amounts of information without any penalty or regulations. He feels very strongly about the "gatekeepers" who've been mentioned in previous blogs and does not agree with their motives or ideas in trying to run the internet and charge its consumers to access their information.

So, how does Sen. John McCain feel about Net Neutrality?

Arizona Sen. John McCain announced that he opposes "net neutrality." McCain appeared at the All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif., and said he did not think government regulation of internet service providers to stop them from censoring, slowing down, or otherwise disrupting consumer’s access to the internet in order to stifle competitors or undesirable content was an appropriate solution. "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,” he said, according to TheDailyBackground.com. Later, McCain said: "I’m all for the government encouraging competition, but I’ve found over time that less government involvement is better."

Information found at http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml

Ok, so, McCain opposes Net Neutrality and leans more towards "laissez-faire" when it comes down to the economic standards of the WWW. He does not wish for Net Neutrality and would not to involve the government in stimulating the internet either.

What can be done to combat those who wish to get rid of our internet neutrality?

Ways to prevent or combat companies are many and easy. Some of these ways are to sign the SavetheInternet.com petition. Or, you could take a much larger, more direct step and Call your members of Congress and demand that Net Neutrality be protected. Encourage groups you're part of to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007". Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog. Or simply tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late and have them do one of the listed things.

Information found on http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#help

Ok, so this one's pretty self-explanatory. Do one of the before-mentioned things to try and stop Net Neutrality from being stopped, or spread the word to your friends, collegues, family, etc. There are also many other ways to combat Net Neutrality, if you wish to find them, simply go to Google.com, type in Net Neutrality, and look around. Good Luck!

So, is Net Neutrality just a big competition among big businesses?

No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly -- not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.
If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.
Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

Information found on http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#who

So, no, its not just a big competition amongst the big businesses. In fact, a free Internet allows for a healthy competition amongst all businesses, big and small. So, by establishing Net Neutrality, the big businesses could eliminate the small businesses and lead to an unhealthy competition amongst just the big business. So, with Net Neutrality, all the businesses are free to compete with one another.

Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s.
But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

Found at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#who

So, no, Net Neutrality is not a new regulation. It has been in the WWW since its creation, even though the founders/inventors didn't expect Net Neutrality to be put into jeopardy. So needless to say, the major phone and cable companies didn't want the Internet to be allowed to access by everyone without them getting a profit so they went to the Federal Communications Commission to try and get it so that they could profit from "deleting" Net Neutrality.

Who would benefit if we got rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

Information found at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#who

Ok, so, what this article says is that the only ones who would be making a benefit if Net Neutrality were to go away would be major telephone and broadband companies. Again, this is because if Net Neutrality were gone, they would regulate who could access their sites and could block anyone out who didn't pay them already or just have their page take extreme amounts of time to load. Thus, they would make a huge profit while we supplied them for what we currently get unlimited of for a set, fairly reasonable price.

What happens if we lose our Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.

Found on http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#congress

This article tells that if we lose Net Neutrality, our functioning way of life will change drastically and as a result, our freedom to express ourselves on the Internet will be limited or restricted by big businesses who profit by selling people their faster ways of accessing the Internet.

What's happening in Congress?

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition applauds the recent introduction of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353). Introduced on Feb. 12, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), this landmark bill would protect Net Neutrality and spark a much-needed public conversation about the future of the Internet.
The new bill would enshrine Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that Internet service providers cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination -- into the Communications Act. It also requires the Federal Communications Commission to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on policies to “promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”
Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have been lobbying furiously to kill Net Neutrality. They want to exploit their gatekeeper power to decide what you can do on the Web.

Info found on: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#congress

What this article tells is that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act would protect Net Neutrality here in the U.S., but is opposed by big Internet distributing companies who wish to exploit the Internet and it's consumers so that they can get as much money as possible.

What's the issue with Network Neutrality here in the US?

Proponents of regulating the Internet under a network neutrality regime are regrouping for another major push for federal action, with all of the Democratic presidential contenders lining up on their side. They have the advantage of an excellent marketing message they want to save the Internet. But just under the surface of that feel-good slogan is an aggressively pro-regulatory agenda that could deter needed infrastructure investment and ultimately end in government management and ownership of the Internet. And that spells disaster not just for economic growth and innovation on the Internet, but also potentially for freedom of expression.
Information found at: http://techrepublican.com/blog/the-conservative-argument-against-net-neutrality

Basically, this short segment is saying that the Republican party wishes to allow freedom to use the Internet, but the Government would end up being in complete control of it. However, there is nothing that says the Republicans would charge the American people to use it.
This article is interesting because it demonstrates the Net Neutrality side of the argument from the Republican point of view, but doesn't explain to the full extent of the Republican's ideals of Net Neutrality.

Politically, the House of Representatives passed the telecommunications bill dealing with Net Neutrality without adequate protections concerning it. The Senate, however, is split on the issue and currently resides in a tie vote on whether or not to allow Net Neutrality.

What's the current standing on Net Neutrality?

Currently, I believe that Network Neutrality is somewhat in use here in the U.S. This is because we, the Internet consumers, must pay in order to have Internet access, but once we pay, we aren't really all that restricted to what information we can access.

Network Neutrality: Free to surf or pay to protect?

Network Neutrality, first of all, is the ability to have access to whatever information on the Internet you want without having to pay for it. With Network Neutrality, we are completely unrestricted to whatever information we desire to access. With it, the Internet user will have to pay the provider in order to access information that is "safe" for that user and will restrict, to an extent, what information you can and cannot see.