Comments on: Push for Net neutrality mandate grows

Seventy companies--including major lobbying muscles for 50-plus set--call for law to combat threats to Web's openness.

[ORinSF]

Unfettered means no legislation

If we really want "unfettered" access to the 'net, then we should not be adding new layers of legislation.

Asking the government to define "neutrality" is approximately that same as asking it to define "decency". Ask yourself whether you want the FCC to be defining acceptable and unacceptable content.

It is also a free speech issue -- these are private bits going over private networks. In my view, the First Amendment says that government shall not restrict it. What is network traffic if not speech?

Do not be fooled by arguments of "unfettered" access. New regulation is the opposite of this.

[schubb]

Spoken like a telco shill

Neutrality is light years away from decency. True nuetrality means that all packets are treated equally once they get onto the backbones.

What the telcos want, is to make their packets more important, because they say it isn't fair they did all of this build up and others are using it. However the Telecommunications act of 1996 gave them the money to build this, tax payer money.

The free speech idea is the most inane thing you could have brought up. If the big boys are limiting the speed of the smaller players, that only leads to constraining free speech. If you don't agree or pay to play, all of your packets are second class, and if they don't make it, oh well.

[ordaj]

Horse pucky

"...Those companies are spending billions to improve their networks."

This is a lie. The networks have already been paid for. ( www.teletruth.org )

[Jim Harmon]

Conspiracy theories abound

I rarely trust any source whose sole purpose is to sell a book that "exposes" any "hidden truth." Each time I look into them, all the claims made are grossly exaggerated. So many of these feed on the fears of people to their own financial advantage.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Basically...

these companies want to spend money on improving what they make money from and give the shaft to everything and everyone else. Basically, if it doesn't make them a buck, you can then forget about it working reliably. With so many things being dependant on the net, it must remain neutral for all or no one but the greedy benefit.

Robert

[Jim Harmon]

What is this saying, exactly?

It sounds like the AARP is opposing tiered internet access pricing. By this, I mean it sounds like they want to outlaw the slower $18/mo DSL service and require that if you have DSL at all it must be the same speed for everyone - which costs at least twice as much.

If so, this is ridiculous. It's like requiring "neutral" automobiles - that they all go as fast as an Indy car. Or "neutral" homes - that they all have to be mansions.

The general law of product lines is: If you want more, you have to pay more. Do they really expect top of the line service at bargain basement prices?

[mcbutterbuns]

Not at all

This isn't about faster line speeds. Its about the data that is transferred over the lines. What the tiered internet means is that MSN could pay the telcos money to have their search results sent faster than Google's. Essentially what they would do is prioritize MSN's packets so that they are routed faster than Google's. Granted both of these companies are against a tiered internet, these guys were used as an example.

Telco's could use this to deliver their own products to consumers faster than their competitors. If the competitor's paid more, than their product would be delivered faster. AKA e-Extortion.

Personally I think it's time we broke the telcos up again. They are getting way too powerful. Too bad we can't.

[ordaj]

I expect if I pay for something, I get it.

The network has already been paid for with tax money from 1996 and the first Telecom Act. The telcos need to provide that high-speed network.

[Earl Benser]

Seems to be much smoke and little fire.....

It would seem logical that an ISP would charge differing amounts
for differing bandwitdths. I have BellSouth DSL and BellSOuth
has four loevels of DSL service, depending on the bandwidth
supplied. BellSouth actually could use a fifth superwide level, but
that's another issue.

I have no problem with paying for the bandwidth I use. Nor
should anyone else. Telso's and cable companies make their
money by selling service, and customers should have no
complaint in paying for that service. Just size the service to the
need.

[vecctor]

missing the issue

The issue is not just different levels of speed. Obviously both google and the customers of google are paying thier ISPs for the amount of bandwidth they use.

The issue here is whether the ISPs can implement systems that give certain data priority over other data.

For instance, if the cable company provided live streams of sports games, and gave that data a higher priority than ESPNs subscription streaming.

People using ESPNs service might get crappy hiccups and lag during a big game when everyone is watching.

That same person now switches to the cable companies streaming and has no problem.

By giving their own stuff priority, they just squashed their competition.

It has the potential to be a very big problem.

Net Neutrality legislation would keep this from happening.

Tiered Internet.

It the same old adage...money walks and money talks.

[btalex1990]

ISPs you want to keep your customers

Allright if you won't listen to reason here's what will happen if you don't listen to me.

Keep the internet open or else you might lose a lot of business because see lots of customers get online for free stuff, to buy something, forums, blogs, message boards, freedom of speech without policemen tear gassing people, and freedom of religion without violating the sepration of church and state.

Now if people find out all the things why they love going online suddenly cease by ISPs a lot (maybe millions) will cancel internet service causing lots of services to lose money. So if you ISP moneymakers really think controlling the net gets you free money, you are wrong.