Comments on: Talk of stimulus funds ignites Net neutrality debate

Consumer advocates are pushing for Net neutrality regulation as the government debates rules for doling out $7.2 billion in stimulus funds to build broadband networks.

[Reflautas]

Marguerite's bias is showing. The story profusely speaks of net neutrality as "regulating" the Internet, which is exactly what discrimination supporters want the spin to be. In truth, however, it is more accurate to say that net neutrality proponents are the true advocates of deregulation, while the anti-net neutrality are the pro-regulation advocates. That is because the opponents of net neutrality law wish to enjoy freedom to regulate the Internet themselves throught whatever discriminatory and gatekeeping functions they believe wil extract the greates dollars from consumers' pockets. The trouble is, a non-neutral Internet is an oxymoron. The Internet is, by its very architecture, neutral. A non-neutral net is an Intranet. Net neutrality opponents in effect want to destroy the "Internet" and replace it with a number of Intranets. The debate is is sort of like highway construction companies and maintenance crews wanting freedom to install whatever toll booths they please, and arguing that those who want to pass a law against it are "regulating the highways".

[Stormspace]

Mrs. Reardon when you have to pay more money each month to use Google, or Youtube, instead of the ISP approved search and video service you'll know it isn't about managing a network, but making money. Comcast is already not counting it's own VOIP traffic against caps right now, instead classifying it as different type of service separate from it Internet broadband without allowing competing services the same advantage.

[BrettGlass]

Marguerite is correct. The lobbyists who spoke in favor of regulation at the hearing pretend to be "consumer advocates," but their organizations are, in fact, heavily funded by big corporations who want the Internet to be regulated the way they want. The biggest such corporation -- the one which is investing the most money in getting these lobbying groups to do its bidding -- is Google. Now that it has merged with DoubleClick, Google is intent on making sure that ISPs do not block its tracking cookies or its other mechanisms for invading users' privacy.

These lobbyists have managed to get a "poison pill" injected into the stimulus legislation, which they claim would require any company taking the money to accept regulation not only of the new networks they built with the money, but of ALL of their networks. In short, they would have to consent to total regulation or they couldn't get a drop of the money. This is a sure way to sabotage the stimulus. Many companies will wisely refuse stimulus funding, while others will recklessly take it and will discover that they can't stay afloat if they meet all of the regulatory requirements (which require, among other things, that they not manage bandwidth on their networks and therefore would send their costs through the roof).

Of course, none of the people who advocate such regulation are actually in the business of providing broadband service to citizens. They're inside-the-Beltway lobbyists who don't have the foggiest idea how the business or the networks work. But they don't care, of course; they're being paid to say what they say. And they don't care if the stimulus is sabotaged, because they will still pull down their cushy salaries.

We can only hope that the NTIA and USDA are smart enough to ignore these lobbyists and listen instead to the folks who are actually deploying rural broadband -- as I and my company are. We've lit up unserved areas 5 times the size of Manhattan in just the past month, and this without stimulus funding. So, we know something about providing rural broadband, and we can tell them how to make the stimulus effective.

[AMart75]

I agree that net neutrality must be addressed to sustain the internet as we have come to know it. However, forcing companies to abide by "special rules to ensure traffic on the Internet flows freely" is implying a legislative position that is yet to be addressed by congress. Congress needs to move forward or it will become a battle of lobbyists.