Comments on: Why Net neutrality means more federal regulation

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint says the term has become a nebulous catchall for competing public policy issues.

[Björn Lundahl]

Governments should not touch the internet!

I think we should keep governments out of the internet. Otherwise the governments will be the big problem. Government regulation is the real threat of the internet. After all, the government takes 50% of your income. Government regulation is not only unethical it is also uneconomical! If people really wants, for example, more safety, they will get it (we all know how, the market informs us all the time). In that way we will know that people gets what they want. With government safety regulations you do not know if people really want them. Only true voluntary action by the people will tell us that! In that way it is economical and truly efficient. Microsoft gives people want they want. They should not give people what they do not want to pay for and they will not either. They make money in giving people what they want! Governments have great difficulties in understanding this. They only understand when their political parties get a lot of votes (a great market share in votes and power) that their parties are popular, but they do not understand that people "vote" for products and services (and companies) by buying and using those products and services. They think that people wants to waste their money (it would, though, still be a service and a vote for wasting money (pleasure, satisfaction)). Only property rights and the free market will let the internet work and also in accordance with peoples desires. Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[laramaral]

DeMint is mistaken

Net neutrality issues are already popping up. One example is Comcast blocking Vonage users.

[Matt deCamp]

The hell? Why are you people buying this crap?

Hey Jim, good job lying through your teeth. Let's see here, you
said: "Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't
want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their
businesses might require for advanced services in the future".
Lies, lies, and more lies... every major corporation already pays
thousands upon thousands of dollars per month if not per day
for their bandwidth, and if they want more, *they have to pay for
it*. Advanced features?! Bandwidth is bandwidth, you twit! It
makes absolutely *no difference* what the hell goes across the
routers and cables!

Net neutrality simply means that everyone pays the same
amount of money for the amount of bandwidth they use, and
telcoms can't charge popular sites more just because they're
popular and owned by successful corporations; the same way I
don't get charged more than my neighbor for property taxes if
more people visit me than him. Telcoms just want to squeeze
money out of prominent corporations for whatever reason they
can make up; of course, if Amazon has to pay more to the
telcoms for their bandwidth, guess who ends up footing the bill
when they raise prices to compensate? US! Your constituents!
BRILLIANT!

So, as you're bald-faced lying here, it's rather apparent that
you've been bribed with donations or whatever. I'm from
Georgia, and it's sad to see a politician from a neighboring state
so obviously corrupt. But, then, you're a Republican; surprise,
surprise!

[jbtps]

not about money, folks

The republicans are almost-famous for distracting from the real
issues..
Providers will make tons of money with or without regulation
because, as many of you have pointed out, there already exists
trusts and monopolies/duopolies. Their embedded
infrastructure is already protected (thanks to the republican
house and senate) from competition and they already have
"tiered" service levels. ("Business" users pay nearly four times the
price for nearly identical service.. for example)
Here in Las Vegas I can get cox cable or sprint dsl. period. yes
there are some "resellers" of sprints copper and bandwidth, but
the service is essentially sprint and ultimately sprint determines
end users price and service.
Cable providers are NOT required to open up their infrastructure
and while telcos are, the laws have softened and allow them to
make it severely unpalatable for resellers (they now have
precedent to change the laws as well..) and consider that the
biggies seem to even have the (lobbying) power to stop
municipalities (read: THE PEOPLE) from sharing their "territory"
and providing cheaper and better service for themselves !
So all this is a smokescreen, a rally-for-freedom that's already
vapor.
What IS at issue is that without regulation, without laws that
specifically prohibit the practice (there were temporary laws that
are now expired), the big corps can and WILL be able to control
the flow of content.
Think about it. Think about the implications on politics and
freedom and censorship and free speech and freedom of the
press when those corps (like ones that donated almost
exclusively to the bush agenda and have ALREADY given up
SOOOO much of our personal data) can control the flow of
information..
Because the internet IS information; unedited, uncensored,
actually By the people, for the people.. benefitting ALL the
people.
We've already seen the results of this in the last "election" when
certain broadcasting and reporting entities were able to control
content and give a decisive slant to certain points of view.
Besides the obvious ...
Sinclair Broadcasting refused to show anti-bush advertisements,
giving decided preference to pro-bush stories and adds..
the FCC (under right wing control) even prevented PBS from
showing children's shows that portrayed gays in a positive,
family environment.
Free thinkers (wether you like them or not is unimportant) like
Howard Stern and others were hammered into exile..
Adverts for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood NAACP were nearly
absent from the airwaves..
Fox news, well, need I say more...
And stories like the spying on Americans was "pressured" into
being withheld until AFTER the elections.
(Actually, MANY stories were withheld until AFTER)


But the INTERNET proved to be a far more formidable source of
both dispensing and receiving REAL information than
anticipated.
In other words, the powers controlled the airwaves and
displayed unconscionable bias in the flow of information. But the
INTERNET was, at that time, untouched, uncontrollable and free.
And THAT proved to be a far more frightening power than the
powers were and are willing to allow. And all of know that that
power is only growing and becoming MORE and MORE pervasive
in ALL of our lives.

Read 1984. Read about the rise of Hitler or any other
dictatorship.

The battle here is about controlling the FREE flow of information
on the internet. PERIOD

[laramaral]

the snowe amendment

This is the amendment he calls "unnecessary regulation"

Internet Freedom Preservation Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 2917 IS


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2917
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 19, 2006
Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act'.

SEC. 2. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--

`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;

`(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;

`(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;

`(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that--

`(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;

`(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the network of such broadband service provider; and

`(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;

`(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and

`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.

`(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a), including--

`(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the network of such broadband service provider, or managing such network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service;

`(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection;

`(3) offering consumer protection services (including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer protection capabilities;

`(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a); or

`(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any violation of Federal or State law.

`(c) Exception- Nothing in this section shall apply to any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit such service.

`(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service- A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service offered by such broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.

`(e) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that--

`(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and

`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.

`(f) Enforcement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--

`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and

`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.

`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband service provider--

`(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations hereunder; or

`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(g) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) AFFILIATED- The term `affiliated' includes--

`(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person; or

`(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement with a content, applications, or service provider relating to access to or distribution of such content, applications, or service.

`(2) BROADBAND SERVICE- The term `broadband service' means a 2-way transmission that--

`(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical transmission facilities used; and

`(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.

`(3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `broadband service provider' means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.

`(4) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE- The term `IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network

`(5) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.'.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON DELIVERY OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, AND SERVICES.

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission shall transmit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives on the--

(1) ability of providers of content, applications, or services to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(2) ability of competing providers of transmission capability to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(3) price, terms, and conditions for transmitting and sending such information into and over broadband networks;

(4) number of entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks; and

(5) state of competition among those entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks.

[dsudak]

Jim DeMint's argument is flawed

DeMint says that there is nothing to worry about because ISP's do not currently restrict access to content, but thats because we have laws in place that prohibit them from doing that and they want to change that and allow ISP's to do just that. Also, I have heard DeMint say that the real issue is protecting our children and society from the stuff that's currently available on the internet by regulating content! So thats what the Republicans really want to do, this whole issue is a win-win situation for them if they can defeat Net Neutrality, first of all they win by helping their big campaign contributors the telephone and cable industries make more money and they win by pandering to the Christian right, who have long been trying to regulate the internet and television! The hypocrasy of DeMint and his Republican cronies is so apparent. On the one hand they changed FCC regulations to add stiffer penalties after Janet Jackson showed her breast, essentially increasing government regulation, but now say "Oh no we should not have more government regulation". Come on guys you can't have it both ways. They just want more regulation when it fits the needs of their constituents, not when it's the right thing to do as in the case of Net Neutrality. The government has always had a hand in the internet, hell they created it! Who in their right mind thinks that just because cable and telephone companies would be able to charge internet content providers based on bandwidth and content that the profits generated will make for lower costs to consumers? If you do, you don't know big business. I say, go get some gas and you'll see what drives big business, profits, profits, profits, screw the consumer, they only want our money!