Talk:Internet Neutrality

I've been trying to get up to speed on this issue and I appreciate Pete's views here. To be sure I've understood correctly, Pete is opposed to the current batch of "net neutrality" bills before congress because they would limit the legitimate ability of ISPs to do traffic shaping and blocking. Pete also seems to be saying that we don't have neutrality now and that the bigs guys are shutting out the little guys by making it too difficult to peer with large providers. So does Pete advocate some sort of legislation to level the playing field here or does he advocate market rule that is currently in place? I would love to hear an audio interview on this subject. --Bradley Ross 15:33, 26 May 2006 (MDT)

So this still doesn't take into account the fact that, let's say Comcast, has run a cable to my house, and owns a good marketshare of the Cable internet in Utah. In fact, I can't think of another provider of cable internet in Utah. So, let's say they decide to limit what I see, what other cable company would run a cable all the way to my house? (Comcast does own the cable running to my house, right?) Phone companies are semi-monopolies like the gas companies, are they not? Am I wrong about this? What if Quest and Comcast (the two major (only?)) high speed internet providers in utah both limit it? Do I have to go back to dial-up? I can't just call up the major provider in Idaho and tell them to run cable all the way from the nearest hub, I'd have to wait months and even years. Same for if Google bought its own ISP and tried to run cable to my house. Also, by slowing down access to a site slow enough, most browsers will "time out" and I wouldn't know if the page was even there anymore, so why would I think that my provider would be slowing it down? Most of your issues are easy to agree with, i'm having a hard time wraping my head around this one.

One more thing that I found about google censoring themselves in china using google.cn

"The vast majority of Web users inside China -- 99 percent, he said -- use Google.com rather than Google.cn at this time.

Chinese Internet service providers take steps to ensure that the uncensored google.com site does not work as intended, Brin said. The google.cn censored site would presumably not be slowed by Chinese blocking tactics." from Reuters [1]

What stops our telecoms from practices used in communist China?Nmaughan 06:50, 9 June 2006 (MDT)

Also here is another tidbit of information that keeps us from "switching ISP's"

"Ending net neutrality might feel safer if the telcos did not often enjoy what are in effect local monopolies on broadband service. The U.S. places 15th among nations in penetration of broadband, according to the International Telecommunication Union. Only about 53 percent of the population has a choice between cable and DSL broadband service; about 14 percent has access to only one broadband provider. That dearth of competition lowers incentives for the telcos to keep overall network service high."

Free market? Hardly, The internets should be like water and electricity, a public utility.

Penetrating the pettifogging and technobabble on Net Neutrality

Pete, I'd like your comments on efforts to amend the C.O.P.E. bill, HR 5252, to protect the principle of Net Neutrality. The Internet is the modern Commons to me . I've also been using the Net since before DARPA turned it over to the public. Like the prior writers, I've been having trouble getting my mind around the "Net Neutrality" issue, separating fact from demagoguery ( a common problem in political discourse these days). I'm guessing that you think the Markley Amendment portion that says: "(b) IN GENERAL.—Each broadband network provider has the duty— (1) not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet;" .. is too broad a prohibition, and would keep you from blocking spammers and freepers. Clearly, these vermin of the Internet have to be fought by ISPs. Would you be willing to work on a Net Neutrality Bill that you could support? There are many, many of us who are really afraid that Big Brother+Big Business will effectively sideline and shutdown the voices of the people and nonprofits on the Internet.

My understanding of the C.O.P.E. bill (HR 5252), passed in June 2006 by the U.S. House of Representatives, is that it is a mixed bag. HR 5252 institutes several revisions to current telecom law: it creates a national franchise for video providers; it undermines Net Neutrality; it addresses e911 and VOIP issues; it guarantees municipal broadband can exist.

It has some good provisions. For example, it protects Municipal Broadband. HR 5252 would protect the rights of local governments to offer broadband Internet service, heading off attempts by telecoms to get out of having to provide service to rural areas. This is very good it would prevent a Telco or CableCo from blocking service to an area they didn't find profitable to serve. A local government could then provide broadband service by some means.

However, some provisions really worry me. For example, the National video franchise provisions would create a national franchise that would set a single standard for every community in America. This is the primary interest of large telecoms like AT&T, who want to compete with cable companies for the video market. This is could promote healthy competition with cable companies, a good thing, right? Yes, BUT: In setting up such a federal franchise OVER the current locally-regulated franchise system, the Congress should have maintained local control and put in regulations to ensure fair treatment to all market segments. HR 5252 strips state and local governments of their authority to enforce strong consumer protections (despite their excellent track record in this area) and gives those powers to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) instead. The FCC doesn't have the resources to handle complaints about billing, service disruptions, etc., nor does it have the authority to issue refunds or rebates to consumers who have had problems. This is a needless expansion of Federal government authority, replacing perfectly functional state systems.

So, apart from Net Neutrality, I think the National Video part also needs limiting amendments.