Sen. Kerry is looking for feedback (edit: he’s only reading comments over at Save the Internet, please!) on the issue of Internet Neutrality. Here’s the comment I left:
I think historical analogies might be the best way to understand why regulation is needed to keep what we understand to be the status quo. We have such a remarkable history of neutrality in our networks, and must continue to foster this blind freedom of communication.
– The early postal system was a large motivating factor in the creation of national roadways, created physical locations where people would meet and discuss issues of the day, and was a source of pride for early Americans.
– Libraries promote values of providing materials of all kinds to patrons, regardless of how the patron looks or what the content of the materials might be.
– The interstate system is open so that WalMart, Mom n’ Pop’s freight, and the public as a whole benefit from the system.
– Finally, in the early telephone monopoly, regulation drove network development and spread out the costs of doing so.The questions to ask are: Why should the Internet be different? Why isn’t our Internet infrastructure something that we are proud of?
Dear John Kerry, We lost our free press when President Reagan eliminated the snti-trust laws for the newspapers and TV station (JOA’s). The internet is one of the last places to see the truth about our political state. I believe we need net neutrality to guarantee our freedom of speech is not sold out from underneath us for a second time just to fatten the wallets of the corporations of this great country. Please do all you can to guarantee net neutrality for the internet in the United States of America. Respectfully, Gene Klingler
The only tool left in Democracy’s kit is the internet. Democracy is totally dependent on the free exchange of ideas and information. We have watched the media, with the exception of a few periodic journals, either wither and die or move furtively from news to entertainment. I am totally dependent on the internet for information about what’s going on in the world. For the internet to also be filtered through the profit motive would put a choke hold on freedom of information and, thus, the end of our hopes for democracy.
It seems to me that the internet should operate like the electric company in that we purchase their service every month but they can’t tell us what brand TV to buy and they do not control what we watch or when we watch.
My concerns with the loss of net neutrality are that;
1) Comcast, for one, could choose to disallow use of certain search engines without customers paying extra, or
2) Could disallow access to say, Crooks and Liars or Raw Story except in the middle of the night or early morning, or
3) Charge those two sites enormous access fees that they could not function without passing those charges along to users which would severely restrict the flow of information. THIS SHOULD BE #1.
The “regulated utility view” of internet providers would be straight forward and leave no room for wiggling around as the model already exists. After all, what else is Comcast, et al other than utility providers?
Actually, to be perfectly honest, the Europeans seem to have it right yet again don’t they?
Dear Sen. Kerry:
I will use two examples to emphasize the critical importance of web neutrality to the long term viability of our country:
1. Please go back to the recent events where Russia unilaterally sharply reduced the flow of gas through a main gas line that passes through Ukraine and feeds Western Europe. This action caused panic, as it was intended by those responsible.
2. Go back to when Netscape developed the first true internet navigator. When Microsoft realized the huge potential of this tool, it promptly implemented a plan to remove the competition. the end result: Netscape is history and Microsoft continues its predatory practices (remember Word Perfect, Lotus, and other programs).
The Internet is no longer simply a means for social communication. It is hard to find an industry that does not make extensive use of the web to market its products or services, sell them, distribute them, provide customer assistance, monitor equipment performance, provide security surveillance and monitoring and most importantly relay alarm conditions. The web is the modern day version of the old wired telephone system. To allow any given company to monopolize it by restricting its access is to attempt against our country’s viability, economic success and security.
Dear Sen. Kerry,
I can remember when all the telcos fought against regulation. Now that we have something they want to regulate it’s use for their own gain.
The internet was not invented by a telco. It is not their property. It is not theirs to administer or regulate. It should be enough for them to lease the use of their (public) lines and receive payment for that.
In the event that they win the day we should see independent service providers enabled to offer the same services which are currently available free from tampering by the telcos. They are always stating that competition is good. Let competition be present then in the way I have suggested. Let the “marketplace” that they so cherish offer alternatives to their heavy fisted desires for control.
Thanks,
JPS
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The internet is one of the few places in life where all people are still equal. That is why people want to end equality of the internet. Thats okay the meek shall inheriate the earth!
Dear Senator Kerry,
Np sooner does this country produce something good for its people than corporate interests try to seize it for its own use. These businessmen have no business controlling the internet. That goes for government, too!Stop them now!
Regards
error: the name is james Murray, not James Murasy
I have to admit I’m fairly torn on this issue. There are so many definitions of Net Neutrality, so many different factors involved, that a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the subject is damned near impossible for me.
On the one hand, the subdomain hijacking is one abuse of many possible ones that could be legislated away through proper Net Neutrality laws. On the other hand, from an engineering perspective, assuming the existence of a bandwidth oversupply inside the network for all time is unreasonable; and depending on end-to-end applications to manage all network traffic, instead of the network itself, can produce completely different types of abuse from content providers. The fact is, proponents of Net Neutrality seem to be trying to make it a law that networks should always be able to handle our biggest communications just like our smallest ones, and an infinite number of both–or, when it hits the wall, allow the bigger communications, the denser voices, to drown out the lighter voices AND themselves.
There doesn’t seem to be a good answer here. Network neutrality? Google gets to google-bomb Comcast into submission with server farms that require their own hydroelectric dams; Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and Vonage continue to make Cox and AT&T their prison b**ch. No network neutrality? Verizon and AT&T get to sell our eyeballs to the highest bidder, regardless of our needs and preferences, without a strong enough competitive market to give us credible alternate choices. Thus negating our ability to vote for Net Neutrality with our wallets instead of our government.
Seems like we’re heading towards a problem regardless of which way we vote. So, in the interim, I’m voting for what keeps my Youtube and Skype accounts cheaper longer–Yes for Net Neutrality!
We need a better answer than any current legislation is really offering, IMHO. (And a more competitive marketplace for data services too…)