Free speech and the internet?

Image via Wikipedia

I guess you really need a PhD in Political Science to take something as simple as Net Neutrality and turn it into some complicated, hole laden piece of legislation. They're going to take one of the most simple and beautiful creation's (the internet), and turn it into some money hungry beast that take's a bite out of you every time you log-on. Access to the internet need's to stay simple. Give me a fast, stable connection to the "WHOLE" internet. Leave the internet alone for me to explore, search and discover as I always have.

 Don't, don't, don't...speed up access to a certain content provider's because they can afford fee's that other's may not. I might not ever come across that little hole-in-the-wall restaurant with rave reviews, or that quirky clothing store, or the mom & pop electronic store because of major chains paying to get preferential placement or throughput. Or...worst yet, some of our content providers either can't or wont pay the fee's and will slowly die out, leaving us with fewer choices. Don't narrow our choices further by charging us a fee to "get-on" then charging us or the content provider a fee to get to the information we want.

 It's simple...charge me what you need to charge me to get me on. But once I'm on....leave me alone. I'll find my own way.

Amplify’d from www.pcworld.com

We need to make access to information on the Internet a basic human right; otherwise, the rights we've enjoyed for centuries will melt away, buried under miraculous technology controlled by robber barons with dollar signs dancing in their heads.

This is what the ISPs want in both the wired and wireless Internet worlds. If we let it happen, we'll get exactly what we deserve: all our information spoon-fed to us by faceless corporations that have nothing to do with anything other than the fact that they think they can.

This is the crux of Net neutrality. Soon, all media will go through the same high-bandwidth pipes. That even applies to today's print newspapers and magazines. Once they go fully digital, there will be vanishingly few ways to access that content without an Internet subscription and a computer.

Look at the cautionary example of television. It used to be that you purchased a TV once and the signals you received flowed freely through the air. This is still true, but over-the-air TV is not anywhere near as common as cable, satellite, or fiber-based television. The majority of Americans pay not only for their televisions, but also for access to the content unavailable over the air -- content produced by an increasingly small number of creators.

A call to arms for Net neutrality As I noted in my Dec. 21 post, the FCC's Open Internet Order is a bad omen for Net neutrality. In response, we need to push much harder in the opposite direction. We must work toward establishing unfettered Internet access as a right similar in status to that of First Amendment free speech. After all, the Internet is the conduit through which free speech is and will be heard for the forseeable future. If we allow corporations to control access to that speech, it might as well not exist.

The questions in the Rasmussen poll could have been lifted from The Onion. They're not about an open Internet; the people responding just think they are. Here's a sample: "What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet -- more government regulation or more free market competition?" Whoever came up with loaded questions like these knows exactly why they're worded that way.

The New Year is upon us, and I still can't stop running dystopian Net neutrality scenarios through my head. Maybe that's because -- in the wake of the FCC's sorry compromise, ironically named the Open Internet Order -- I keep encountering confused, misinformed coverage of the issue. You can see the effects in polls like this one from Rasmussen. But don't blame the respondents; blame the questions they were asked. Read more at www.pcworld.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/kefk

What is Net Neutrality? It's very simple, it should be neutral. Nothing more, nothing less!

The internet should be just like a utility, like electric or gas. For me it's not a luxury, it's a necessity...like a microwave. I didn't know I needed one until I had one. I remember my parent's being the same way. It's an information highway, it opens up the whole world. It's opened up this channel for me to write my woes's & gripes. Whether or not anybody else ever reads them, it's an awesome out-let for me. It's my escape, it's my door into another world. I think this door should be open for everybody to experience. But sadly, it is a luxury for a lot of people, or they seem to think it's a luxury because they haven't experienced it...like my parents. They think it's too expensive and don't see the value in it. But I know, just like the microwave, once they have it and experienced it for what it is, they wouldn't want to be without it. Not only does it open up the world, but it open's up your living room to your own family. Most are in awe the first time you video chat. It would be nice to see my mom more often. Sometimes it get a bad rap, It's not just for games or porn. It does have some evil in it, but I think the good out-weighs all the negatives. So it needs to stay neutral. If Comcast or any provider needs to upgrade their systems because of the increase in traffic, then they should charge us more. I said us, the consumer. I don't think they should be getting into the business of charging Netflix or Hulu or what ever content provider we choose to watch, listen too, or read because then whatever content provider has the most money, is going to get preferential treatment into my home. That should be my business, and only my business. The electric company doesn't worry about which light bulbs I use. If I use more electricity, they charge me more money. The same should hold true with Comcast, Qwest or which ever provider we use.   Give me a fast, reliable connection into my home, and let me decide how to use it. I'm for TOTAL net neutrality.

Amplify’d from lifehacker.com

What is Net Neutrality?

As its name indicates, net neutrality is about creating a neutral internet. The basic principle driving net neutrality is that the internet should be a free and open platform, almost like any other utility we use in our home (like electricity). Users should be able to use their bandwidth however they want (as long as it's legal), and internet service providers should not be able to provide priority service to any corner of the internet. Every web site (whether it's Google, Netflix, Amazon, or UnknownStartup.com) should all be treated the same when it comes to giving users the bandwidth to reach the internet-connected services they prefer. Your electric company has no say over how you use your electricity—they only get to charge you for providing the electricity. Net neutrality aims to do something similar with your internet pipes.

What are the Arguments For Net Neutrality?

Proponents of net neutrality don't want to give the ISPs too much power because it could easily be abused. Imagine that Verizon or AT&T don't like the idea of Google Voice, because it allows you to send text messages for free using your data connection. Your cellphone carrier could block access to Google Voice from your smartphone so you're forced to pay for a texting plan from them. Or, they see that a lot of people are using Facebook on their smartphone, so even if they have the bandwidth to carry that traffic, they decide to charge you extra to access Facebook, just because they know it's in high demand and that they can make a profit.

Similarly, Comcast recently got in a tiff with Netflix over its streaming video offerings, essentially telling Netflix's partners that they'd need to pay if they wanted their content delivered on their network. Comcast argued that streaming Netflix is a huge traffic burden, and if they're going to provide that service they'll need to update their infrastructure. Netflix's argument was that Comcast provides the internet, and it's Comcasts users that have requested that extra bandwidth for the services they want.

What are the Arguments Against Net Neutrality?

Anti-net neutrality activists argue that internet service providers have a right to distribute their network differently among services, and that in fact, it's the ISPs that are innovating. They argue that giving preferential treatment to different services isn't a bad thing; in fact, sometimes it's necessary. In the recent Comcast/Netflix debate, they point out that if Netflix is sucking up all their bandwidth, they should be the ones to pay for the necessary updates that Comcast's systems will require because of it. Read more at lifehacker.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/k0if

Related articles

• An Introduction to Net Neutrality: What It Is, What It Means for You, and What You Can Do About It [Explainer] (lifehacker.com)
• Comcast & Netflix In Net Neutrality Row: Now Will You Care About Net Neutrality? (crunchgear.com)

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Released in Full. Are the wireless carriers going to have to play by the rules?

If the last rule is going to have any teeth, the penalties need to take a bite out of their profits. If the penalties are anything like the penalties that have been levied against the wireless services providers in the past, then they'll be smiling all the way to the bank.

Amplify’d from www.pcworld.com

As you may have heard, this week the FCC approved net neutrality rules that sought to strike compromise between Internet companies, broadband providers and consumers. The nitty-gritty starts on page 27 of the document, but here's the gist:

No Discrimination: Wired broadband providers may not speed up or slow down individual types of lawful traffic, with exceptions for reasonable network management. No such rules apply to wireless broadband.

As the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, one of the major sticking points is that last rule, which would govern deals between an Internet company and a broadband provider for faster delivery (also known as "paid prioritization"). Although the rules allow for paid prioritization, these deals would "raise significant cause for concern" according to the FCC, and would be subject to increased scrutiny.

How will the FCC's rules be enforced? Using the same process as its cable access complaint rules, the FCC will allow users to submit formal complaints, which are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In most cases the burden of proof will be on users, but based on the evidence, the FCC can also make Internet providers prove they weren't breaking the rules. The FCC believes it can "issue citations and impose forfeiture penalties for violations of our rules." See page 82 of the document for more on enforcement. Read more at www.pcworld.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jgg3

Republicans Declare War on FCC Net Neutrality Rules

When it come's to service, price & speed, you would think that the United States would be at the top of the heap? We're not. Other countries out preform us in so may area's when it comes to broadband, especially wireless broadband. All of our wireless providers are starting to brag-up their new 4G service's, and how much faster they are. Who the hell cares when your "unlimited service' caps you out at 5GB a month. Blow through your limit in a week with your new 4G service so your provider can charge you for going over your limit. Oh..but wait, if you choose to use other services beside's Google or Facebook, who can afford to pay the carriers new fee's, maybe you won't blow through your cap because everybody else will be throttled back because they didn't pay up. You know what, we do sit on top of a heap...it just happens to be a big steaming heap!

Amplify’d from www.pcworld.com

The Federal Communications Commission may have a fight on its hands early next year as a result of the regulatory board's approval of new network neutrality rules. Republican lawmakers are not happy about the FCC's new rules. The decision has inspired incoming committee chairs in the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives, senior Republican senators and others to declare war against what they see as further government intrusion into private life.

The second rule says that broadband providers cannot block "lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of devices to the network." Wireless broadband carriers, meanwhile, may block services they deem appropriate as long as the carrier doesn't offer a competing service.

The new rules also discourage, but don't disallow, paid prioritization, a euphemism for a scheme where broadband providers could shake down Web services such as Google and Facebook to pay for the right to have their traffic delivered faster to your home than other online services. Read more at www.pcworld.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/j65h