Comments on: Net neutrality or Net censorship?

ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson says Dick Armey's criticism of the Christian Coalition misses the point.

[djpaisley]

Good rant... Neutral is best.

While I wish someone other than the ACLU could have authored this piece, it's still a good explanation.

[ewelch]

Gatekeepers

Back when I was in journalism school - in '87 - we talked about
the future of the information superhighway that was coming. We
talked about gatekeepers being large corporations and nations
who wanted to control who had access to what information. And
this fear we had that monied interesets would take over and
keep people from having free access to information seems to be
a great possiblity.

Who better than the ACLU to support this? We have to recognize
that government officials has a vested interest in supporting the
deep-pocketed companies like AT&T, and they're going to
unless we make it very uncomfortable.

The rants against the ACLU here and elsewhere are the same
cluelessness that allowed the Nazis to attack the Jews, and then
the homosexuals, handicapped and finally even Christian
theologians who had the temerity to question the treatment of
Jews and others.

They may not be restricting your speech at this point, but once
they restrict the speech of the people you disapprove of, they
are going to come after you in the end. And that means anyone
who doesn't have millions to line their pockets is going to be cut
out as wasters of bandwidth.

[zanzzz]

Important What Net Neutrality Is Not

There are many people in high places that have a completely mistaken understanding as to what Net Neutrality supposedly is. It's critical to blow away the smoke screen of misrepresentation and FUD the industry lobbyists have promulgated.
-NN does not legislate pricing.
-It does not prevent ISP's from charging according to bandwith used or prohibit tiered packaging based on connectivity.
-It does not prevent ISP's from providing content or "special" content streams.
It simply requires all bits be treated equal across the network regardless of origin, destination, or legal activity.
Is that really so difficult to understand Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens???

[montie_3]

Then, I haven't seen a NN bill yet

Have you read the actual proposed bills?

[mkraai]

Strange bedfellows

When the ACLU and the Christian Coalition agree, it's time for Washington to wake up.

While I am a conservative in all dimensions I can think of, I do think that Net Neutrality does need to be regulated.

Free and open markets are usually the best policy, but the same profit motive that greases the wheels of capitalism, eventually causes those who are entrusted with the delivery of a public asset to simultaneously squander and devalue that asset by overcharging, limiting access, and otherwise manipulating the market.

Whether it's railroads, radio broadcasting, utilities (telephone, power, etc.), internet access, or any other public asset, legislation is always required to maintain value to the public.

Net Neutrality legislation is needed now, so we won't have to undo the damage after it happens.

[pjhenry1216]

finally someone with good sense

more people have to come forward and show support for articles like this one.

[omaryak]

Need more details on pre-2005 law

What exactly did the FCC and Supreme Court do to abolish the Net Neutrality that existed and why? I want to know because this point is most interesting to me. I thought that Net Neutrality was the de facto state of the Internet up until this point, not de jure. If we can show the public that a Net Neutrality law would just be establishing the status quo ante, it might have a better case to make to the public. And speaking of which, why do I only see anti-neutrality ads in the media? Where is the pro-neutrality coalition?

[montie_3]

The author got it wrong

Net neutrality was never a legal standard. Some have read net neutrality into the 1996 Telecom Act. A few ISPs tried to sue to have it enforced. However, the FCC and Supreme Court disagreed.

[lorcro2000]

"Common carrier" protection was removed

The FCC removed "common carrier" protection from broadband connections. Before that was done, the broadband connections had the same protection as phones, so the telcos literally couldn't discriminate. Net neutrality was indeed the law for many years. A one year moratorium was put in place by the FCC to keep the telcos from charging others willy nilly but that has now run out.

The reason you see only anti-neutrality ads is because the telcos have deep, deep pockets already and are using those to pooh-pooh the net neutrality fears. They've gone so far as to create "fake" grassroots groups, even, but they are wholly funded by the telcos.

Heck, they could spend billions on ads and it would still be a good deal - if they avoid net neutrality laws, they can then charge everyone for everything for many years to come.

[montie_3]

ACLU is in over its head here

Frankly, the American Civil Liberties Union has neither the regulatory background to be talking about these issues.

Assuming Fredrickson is speaking of the "Brand X" case, she mischaracterizes the FCC and Supreme Court ruling. Basically, Brand X was an ISP that went to court to force cable companies to lease their networks to competitors at regulated rates. The Supreme Court ruled that "data services" like cable were exempt from "common carrier" regulation. (Data services had been exempt since the 1970s.) In other words, "net neutrality" was the novel idea.

The ACLU should stick to civil liberties.

[newcreation]

aclu should really be bankrupt

99 percent of aclu cases are for ultraliberal causes.lets boycott them

[zanzzz]

Who's In Over There Head?

The fact that "data services" like cable were found to be exempt from "common carrier" provisions by The Supreme Court can be interpreted as having a wider affect than the immediate contention in this case. If cable companies are not common carriers then they are private data service providers and can pretty much do as they see fit in handling their (and your?) data services. In years past VOIP, video streaming and a myriad number of emerging data technologies were not a critical issue regarding the privativation of the Internet. Most of these technologies were nonexistent, not widely used, and/or had poor performance. Also of critical relevance was the fact that broadband was the exception not the rule it has become today. It is only recently that all the forces of wide adoption, wide bandwith and mature technical applications have brought the "Perfect Storm" of who get's to call the shots and make the money in this critical field.
Finally, to accuse anyone of "being in over their head" on this issue is the funniest part! Go listen to an esteemed legislative expert such as Sen. Ted Stevens, Chairman on the Senate Commerce Committee also on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Appropriations Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; Interior; Labor, Health, Human Services and Education; and Legislative Branch. He also is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and is Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.
This man is trying to pass sweeping legislation, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 2006. From his very own words it's clear he obviously lacks understanding of the technology for which he is legislating over! I'll respect the ACLU's opinion over this senile old fool who's in the Teleco's pockets. Besides, Ted's tubes are probably still full!

[acumen4IT]

Kudos? to you for pointing it out so well!

I have to tell you, my opinion of the ACLU has been pretty bad these past few years due to some of there causes & crusades. However I think you hit the nail right on the head. I have been in Information technology for over 20 years. I have been involved and seen the Internet grow to what it has become today. Does anyone really realize how many companies revolve around the Internet, depend on it for survival, and would die without net neutrality? These companies and new evolving companies are a larger part of our economy. The fast paced growth and all the benefits that have come from it I agree have been from net neutrality. Kudos? to you for pointing it out so well!

[FreedomJournal]

Internet Censorship of Black Writers

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING POSSIBLE CIVIL ACTION
AOL AND VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES (MARCH 11, 2004)


Carl A. Patton
P.O. Box 1745
Murfreesboro, TN 37133
Main Screen Name previously with AOL: calpatton
Cancelled service 8 March 2004


I have been a member of AOL for more than seven years. I have had an on-line Journal (FreedomJournal) for at least six years. I have also had Web Pages with AOL for most of that time.

AOL claims I have violated their terms of agreement policies thus my Journal has been cancelled regarding bulk email and alleged spamming.

However AOL seems to have gotten involved in Censorship. Recently I received several hate messages. I reported this to AOL. Soon after that AOL informed me that they had received over 30 complaints from various people. But they would not reveal to me the nature of the complaints. For example did these complaints come from the people who had sent me hate mail? Also is it responsible to penalize me because someone visited my Web Pages and disagreed with some of my research? Also did AOL investigate the source of the email messages received by those that made the alleged complaints?

Historically I have received hate mail. Also many people have complained and threatened to report me to AOL to Censor, Ban are stop me from posting my on-line Journal. Many of these people have never been on any of my email lists. Anyone on my list is removed at their request. Also we all know that there is a delete button. You also don?t have to read any material that offends you and material that you disagree with.

Meanwhile I am confused, how can you conduct an investigation of complaints made against me without referring to the complaints. More specifically how can you take action against me for alleged complaints but deny me the right to offer my side.

Also in my quest for justice and my right to Free Speech I contacted the FBI. The FBI informed me that my case did not fall under the criminal codes regarding Civil Rights violations. However they encouraged me to seek Civil Action.

To do this I need an attorney to request all messages of complaints forwarded to AOL regarding my Journal. I also need written documentation regarding the hate mail I have received over the years.

This information can be requested from:
Legal Dept.
2200 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166


Peace be unto you,



Carl A. Patton

[Earl Benser]

You protest too much...

First of all, once you identify yourself as a black author or
publications, there are people who need no other reason to send
hate mail, or at least non-favorable mail. The definition of hate
mail is often an arbitrary call by the receiver - a call which may
not be actually rational.

Secondly, the operations of AOL are not exactly professional
even on a good day. So any form of screw-ups by AOL are to be
expected as the price of using their defective service. What AOL
does, and what AOL says they did are not necessarily
coordinated. There could be a great deal of BS in this
'resolution'.

The FBI probably made the right call. They pay attention to real
crimes and let the individuals resolve less serious conflicts.

Maybe you need to just relax and accept the unpleasant mail as
the price for having your head up.

[gjkezski]

I agree that the ACLU is at times VERY irritating with some of the causes they champion. Many of them are extremely unpopular with a large portion of the population. There have been a few times that they have completely enraged me. However they DO serve an occasional useful purpose.

The biggest purpose they champion is Freedom in any form. This time I believe that they are right.

The biggest surprise to me is that the Christian Coalition, another group that has many times righteously ticked me off by trying to tell me that I MUST live the way THEY want, actually agrees with them.

I guess Miracles do occur!

If you want to promote Net Neutrality try looking at a sponsored link from here on CNET:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq?gclid=CIWQtO--45YCFRdinAodDlCeOg