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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, November 14, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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.
"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.
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)