Comments on: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Rules

By: David in South Carolina

David in South Carolina — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:04:35 +0000

Janus, I agree with just about everything you write but I cant agree with you here. I think in theory that it would be all well and great for no one to be able to tell us what we can look at on the internet, but that’s not what Obama has in mind. I’m sure you mean well when you support net neutrality, but I think you and Obama have two completely different ideas on what net neutrality is. This is the first step in the FCC taking over the internet through the power of regulation. Right now they’re saying they want to protect free speech, but that’s just to get their hooks into the big providers. Once they have the leverage, they’ll use it to spread their socialist agenda. We need to say no to the FCC controlling business and speech alike. We need to kill this net neutrality stuff here and now.

By: Janus

Janus — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:34:56 +0000

Jonathan, I hate to admit it because it’s such a cheesy and unreliable source, but I read the wiki before writing my posts. If you’d like more information about the vote earlier this year, I’d recommend this article: http://news.cnet.com/Senate-deals-blow-to-Net-neutrality/2100-1028_3-6089197.html

Andrew, I really wouldn’t have a problem with wireless providers putting in place a limit of one connection per account, and unsecured connections aren’t really controllable, let alone leglislatable. If traffic is really an ISP’s main concern, I have no problem (and those in favor of NN do not argue against) allowing companies from placing a cap on the maximum bandwidth on users — as long as it’s not discriminatory (as it has been in the past.)

My problem with the way the system is currently run is that companies that currently have a monopoly on broadband access can literally “throw the switch” on content, shutting down access to things they doesn’t agree with and leaving consumers no access to the internet and no legal remedy — in the case of broadband there’s no alternative, in the case of cellphone providers you can’t get out of a contract even though the services provided have substantively changed.

If there was competition and consumer choice we wouldn’t be having this discussion, the free market would take care of itself, but we simply aren’t talking about a system where adequate supply and demand forces can properly play out.

I agree that part of the problem is how technical of an issue it is. Most people don’t understand where the internet comes from or what throttling even is, let alone how it affects their choices. Adding to it the complexity of shaping a serious regulatory regime that is fair to both consumers and providers and then cramming it down congress’s throats just makes it all the more difficult.

We will definitely have to see the form that the final regulations take, but right now I’m cautiously optimistic.

By: Andrew Clunn

Andrew Clunn — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:22 +0000

Hey, it looks like the phone companies had the same thoughts on that.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/22/att_weighs_in_against_net_neutrality_for_wireless_networks.html

By: Andrew Clunn

Andrew Clunn — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:30:20 +0000

I’m going to have to disagree here. For land line connections? Sure. But for wireless connections? There’s a problem there because of the issue that arises from multiple end terminals pulling from a single access point. Some versions of these proposals would make some of the techniques used to maximize wireless connections illegal. It’s a result of the people making the laws not understanding the technology.

By: Jonathan Bruder

Jonathan Bruder — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:11:36 +0000

Here here! Great post, and I’m really excited about this policy stance.

On another note, I’d find it helpful if you’d link your sources about things like the last senate vote. Not only would it make it easier to find the info, but it might also garner you (a possibly small number of) referrer hits.