Comments on: New group aims to 'save the Internet'

Coalition says FCC needs power to police Internet to ensure broadband providers follow "Net neutrality" rules.

[ORinSF]

Why would we want more policing?

The 'net neutrality proponents are severely misguided. The current state of the net is that there are no inhibitions on architecture or protocols.

The neutrality folks want to give the government new powers to say what can and can't be done on the 'net. It is the opposite of what has brought us this far, even if it sounds well-intended. Please don't believe the hype.

More here: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/

[across04]

You must be a lobbyist

It is not misguided to ensure net neutrality. Verizon already tries to cripple bluetooth functionality in their phones to make sure we use their network bandwidth for sending pictures and files.

Some cable companies have already tried to disable Vonage phone service to promote their own service.

These companies are charging us for the bandwidth. We should be able to use our bandwidth for whatever legal use that we want.

Google, Craigslist, Yahoo and others already pay substantial sums for their bandwidth. I should be able to get their services as fast as possible. Without net neutrality, Cable Companies and Telcos will be legally allowed to "Extort" money from everyone to get the speeds they already have (and have already payed for) today.

Those with new ideas will have a new barrier to entry to the marketplace. They will have to pay extortion to get access. This is anticompetitive and should be stopped.

Just my thoughts!

[freemarket--2008]

Let the market decide

The last thing we need is more government regulations on the internet.

If some company is not providing what you need, let them know. If that fails, let everyone know and then look for alternatives.

Bringing in the government will just add a layer of red tape and give them more excuse to sift through company records. In the end it will cost us all a lot more.

Here's why we need more policing...

1) Internet godfathers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have both said that if you tier the Internet, well, you don't have the Internet anymore. I think I'd weigh their opinions a bit more than the telcos' lobbyists.

2) The Internet2 backbone has no tiering -- and delivers HD and other real-time streams perfectly.

3) Cisco's Service Exchange Framework appears expressly designed to filter, degrade, monitor, and control third-party traffic transiting a carrier's network.

4) The carriers won't answer the simple question, "will you perform deep-packet inspection on customers' traffic?" Their failure to answer this question says it all.

5) Innovation is occurring at layers 4-7 (Google, eBay, Amazon, Skype). Someone should explain how erecting tollbooths on the Internet will spur innovation.

Great explanation here, entitled "Network Neutrality is not an optional feature of the Internet":

http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/net-neutrality-not-an-optional-feature-of-internet/

And you can see a hypothetical telco ad from the future -- a future without network neutrality -- here:

directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

Contact Congress and make your voice heard.

[PzkwVIb]

All well and good

But the FCC is full of hacks. They don't need any more power. They need to be reigned in to do only their original task, assigning Radio Frequencies. They are currently an overly political collection of power hungry career polititians who need to be put out of work. Insure net neutrality via law if you must but keep the FCC as far away as possible.

[Paninteas]

New group aims to 'save the Internet'

Google and all the other data providers should receive a stipend from the carriers. These content providers are the ones that are responsible for the very existance of the carriers. Without the content the carriers would not want or need to build bigger or faster media to carry all that data they have the privledge to charge a fee for. The charge them for the bandwidth they use they charge users to carry it to them. The content providers are what drive me to the network to begin with.

[ORinSF]

quite possible, excellent point

If we leave the market to develop freely, that's entirely possible. Neutrality advocates are assuming that the carriers have the power. In a few years, those same carriers may be begging Google for their content. It's another reason we shouldn't try to legislate now...

[MisterFlibble]

Oy, it's a trifecta! The gov't should get it over with and...

..kill the internet off once and for all... this IS appearently what they want to do, with this ontop of Gosalez's porn squad demands and data retention, and Lamar's "IP" legislation, all in the same week, it seems to me more than ever, the GOP's true agenda is to swiftly, but quietly, kill off the internet, and any voice of opposition to them. Very Orwellian. It's been a long time in coming, I guess, but I don't get how people can't see the writing on the wall. Vote for these people, and they will get rid of all forms of expressions in the quickest time possible.

[rderveloy]

Ok then, so who?

If the goverment shouldn't regulate ISP's to prevent abuse, then who should?

The problem lies in that huge corporations have influence over their customers that can rival a small goverment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for smaller goverment, but somone needs to keep the big corporations in line and keep them from abusing their power.

What if a company such as Exxon came in and said "we're going to charge consumers more money for gas simply because it costs more to ship forign oil over here". This would cause the price of gas to go up and hurt consumers.

What would you do then? Go to another gas station right? Well, what if there are only 2 or 3 gas stations in town and they all buy their gas from Exxon?

That's a lot like what's going on with ISP's. In most major towns, there might be only 1 or 2 broadband ISPs availiable depending on where you live in that town.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that both ISPs offer their own VOIP service. Without "net neutrality" they could allocate more bandwidth to their VOIP services and therefore reduce the bandwidth availible for your exsitng VOIP service.
This would degrade the quality of your existing VOIP service, essentially making you switch over to theirs (and perhaps pay more money) to get a good, reliable VOIP service.