@The1Jeffy

These service providers already get billions of subsidies every year. Why don't they use the money they have to better their technology. Why give them more, when they don't use what they have?

I don't particularly agree with the FCC regulating it, but as consumers we do need someone to approach when the ISP won't do anything. There needs to be some sort of oversight. You can't expect the stock holders to have the consumer's best interests at heart.

@ Skyler

While I admit that I’m being optimistic, this would be a perfect time for market competitors to oust those who are using questionable business practices. However, that solution is purely hypothetical and would involve the consumer to sit there placidly waiting for solutions to appear.

Where are these competetors supposed to get the capital to compete on the proper scale? In order to be a competitor, you would need 100s of millions of dollars to lay lines that can be used to compete with the companies that have dominated in even the smallest of states.

There is some hope for new competition. The 700 Mhz auction. If the right people win that auction, they will lease it out to broadband providers for competing services. But if the wrong people (ie AT&T or Verizon) get ahold of it, they will not use it to their full potential. They will not have the best interests of the consumer in mind.

But even that requires the kind of capital that most new comers don't have. The C block has a reserve price of $4.6 billion dollars. How many consumer minded organizations have that kind of capital? That is just the reserve price. To actually win the auction you are looking at needing over $10 billion.

so what happens here? Are we going to face another hail of attacks on how the internet contains any kind of perversion and terrible acts for public viewing? parents unaware that it is their job to regulate what their child sees, not the governments job and they have the right to choose whether they view adult content or not

What in the world is Net Neutrality anyway? Is it a good thing? A bad thing?

@ MaskedPixelante

Net Nuetrality means that ISP cannot force restraints on what content travels on their lines.

With out net nuetrality(NN) ISPs would be free to block P2P traffic, charge websites a fee to add their website to the best services.

In another way to look at it, with out NN ISPs and their services would look like cable providers. If you want the best access to the net, you will have to pay a premium.

So if you do a lot of P2P, you will have to pay 3 times as much for an internet connection than the average user.

The ISPs say they will have the best interest of the consumer in mind when filtering content, but that is not the case.

The arguments for NN are deep and many. I cannot go into it all now. But let me say it this way, without NN you will not have access to everything you want to do on the internet with out paying a price.

http://www.freepress.net/docs/markey_086_xml.pdf

So we trust the FCC to uphold freedom of speech on the 'net? Color me skeptical. I like most of the language in this bill, but it's typically vague - how does the FCC go about proving/disproving that ISPs are packet sorting a competitor's VoIP service? And, if passed, will the FCC have control of content (similar to radioand broadcast TV)? So if I say "Asshat" on a website before 8 o'clock I can be fined?

Honestly, if we just break down the territorial monopoly cable companies have, the internet would stay neutral by simple consumer choice. Remember, this is the same FCC charged with protecting 'decency' on public airwaves. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy at the idea of giving the FCC more power.

Geez, this article gave me a scare for a second. I went, "I thought Jimmy Hoffa was dead!" and had to look up the Teamsters to find out it was his son.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know where the ESA stands on net neutrality, given their anti-piracy stance as reported yesterday? I would assume that if the telecom industry was in charge of the information flow, they'd be on board with blocking ROM and torrent sites -- I want to say "for the right price" but it's entirely possible that they'd do it on their own motivation.

@Brett Schenker

The links that you gave are pages with 404 errors.

I really don't get the ECA. Why do they need 20 dollars from me? Is my 20 dollars really just going for all that gaming crap? Why can't we just fight net neutrality without being money hungry?

Think for yourself, don't let the ECA do it for you.

@ Darkness

The money goes toward running the organization. You can't do much without some way of funding it.

By "game crap" I take it you mean the free magazines and such, those are donated to the ECA by those companies. SO you are not paying for it.

The ECA is far from "money hungry." Even non profits need cash to operate.

"The introduction of this legislation gives hope to the millions of Americans who want the public — not phone and cable companies — in control of the Internet."
NOOOO!!!!! Do people not understand??????? The last thing I want is the government getting its hands into the internet. I admit that some practices by certain ISP's is deplorable, there is something that we call all do about it: don't buy their services. The market can handle this issue without voters (who know NOTHING about networks) dictating what we should do.

Net Neutrality is a solution to a problem that does not exist, at least to the extent that legislation would be the solution. Just because one bad-apple ISP decided to block PtoP traffic to save bandwidth we now have some sort of free speech revolution? Christ, this issue makes me sick.

Just a side note...
You guys are called the Entertainment CONSUMERS Association. As consumers you are taking the real power out of your hands by bantering to the lawmakers. Act like consumers and actually boycott some stuff. Deliver some bad press about this ISP. Organize rallies and so on. Just don't try to pass a ridiculous bill that ultimately will be detrimental to the community. Personally, I'd rather have the internet in the hands of the people who MADE IT WHAT IT IS rather than hand it over to the government on a nice silver platter. You people are so fickle it disgusts me.

EZK is dead on target. I live in Canada, where most people have no idea what net neutrality is, and don't care when you try to tell them. Unfortunately, if NN is abolished here it will be an even bigger problem than it is in the states, seeing as the entire country only has 2 major ISPs to choose from. So I definitely think it's a good idea for everyone to do as much as they can to discourage the abolishment of NN. If the idea is shot down in the US for good, I'd say there's a lot better chance that it won't happen in canada either.

EZK,

I am wondering how this bill even addresses your problem. The problem is not that the one ISP is throttling your connection (or hypothetically).

It's that you only have ONE choice. So now the FCC is going to make a competitor invest in your area? No, they will likely keep it semi-neutral, except for government emergencies, and in the meanwhile begin the draconic march of decency that they have had with broadcast media. Cable has been a small refuge, because a paid-for-service isn't under the sway of the FCC.

Now certain cable companies have the idea that netTV, etc. are a threat and they should be able to regulate the content of the internet like they regulate the content of cable TV. Certain DSL compaines are feeling the pressure of cheap VoIP competition.

These are valid concerns, but instead of increasing their own technology, providing better service, and adapting to a new market, they decided to apply politcial pressure and get the nod for big-business sweet heart deals. No dice, the consumer won't stand for it and the save-the-internet crusade is born. Which I largely agree with fundamentally. However, this bill is just appeasement langueage to use an archaic system (FCC) that has long since out-lived it's mandate to silence the masses and apply old rules to new media.

Honestly, I would be more for federal subsidies for new ISPs to run new hardware and provide real competition. It's done with other utilites, and really, the internet is becoming as neccesary as electricity.

Supporting this bill tells the government one thing. That we are dependent upon them. We need them to take care of every little issue and we can't do it ourselves. Why can't we handle this issue? Why can't we be independent? Give me one good reason please. Sure it is more difficult but it is definitely more rewarding. ISP has to listen to their consumers or risk another entity replacing them.

BTW, a lot of people use the Internet for gaming, so no this absolutely its a video game issue.

Agreed. I'm not sure Net Neutrality is the way; if anything, should the government get involved, if an ISP is monopolizing an area they should address that. It's as though the government is treating the symptoms but not the cause. Now I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but I can clearly see that the government's involvement is not it.

I believe that you are correct about the monopolizing issues. I think the ISP policy should be solved by the free market. Now I think they are abusing the consumer with their policies but I can't say I don't support the idea of people having the ability to make their own policies for their company. Thats like saying blizzard can't charge extra for expansions and the monthly WOW fee.

I really think the government sees this as the internet opening its door and welcoming them. Its not comfortable, its like inviting a thief into your home.

This is gonna be a long one. I apologize in advance.

The issue boils down to who do you trust more: ISPs or the FCC? I personally don't trust either one. With the ISPs, they are starting to realize that they can do whatever the hell they want with our content, and that noone can do anything about it. Blocking P2P traffic, making you pay a premium to put packets of a certain type on the network at all, etc. as they say, today it's the p2p, tomorrow the mmo servers, then the ftp, then http, then no packets that don't have a custom proprietary marker in one of the blank tcp fields (and i guess udp traffic is just out of luck, for those of you who are following all of these crazy letters). Slippery slope, as they say, with no one but the isps to stop it, if it is left to market forces.
Now, the FCC would step in with the noble intention of "saving the internet". First, from the ISPs. Next, from itself. They might/would start to see the internet as something to be formed into their own image, as has been stated above, perhaps most vociferously by my compatriot, Skyler. This is a concern which I also share.

Now, to arguments. People have brought up the "market forces would guide the ISPs along the path we would like of them". I disagree. Not only would waiting for market forces to correct the ISPs leave many, many people with nowhere to turn while it might or might not happen, I don't think it would happen at all. Market forces count on genuine free market competition in a relatively low inertia environment. Arguments against market forces fixing this:
Upon seeing a competitor start using a shady business practice to gouge money out of consumers, another ISP is more likely to start imitating them than use that practice as an excuse to ride to the salvation of the beleaguered consumers. This is because consumers are a drag to the ISPs. They complain, they require maintenance based on the numbers, and expanding to a new area is a frakkin expensive process. On the whole, if they could get more money from fewer consumers, they'd be all for it. So you don't see any current ISPs rushing to claim the moral high ground, because it happens to coincide with a (perceived) financial valley.
Additionally, you don't see any new ISPs stepping up for reasons stated above, namely, lack of capital. In short, the ISPs have an oligarchical monopoly on what they do, and breaking in to that would be nigh on impossible.

Now, arguments against FCC having control of it. This should be much shorter. It goes: Look at their track record. Have they ever got their hands on anything and not tried to censor it?

If anyone has any more arguments or counter arguments to these, feel free to bring them up.

And so, we come to this. Do we allow the ISPs to censor internet content based on what they can gouge the most money out of us for, or do we allow the FCC to censor internet content based on a perceived moral majority?

Of course, there are sub issues within Net Neutrality. Should ISPs be able to charge more money for higher prioritization of certain types of traffic? I say yes. VoIP, for instance, it might be worth paying a bit extra so that network congestion won't affect it as much. It would result in a more consistent and reliable delivery of VoIP packets. Should ISPs be allowed to drop or downgrade certain types of traffic based on service fees? I think no, because that equates to content censorship. In short, my beliefs are that all traffic that is put on the network should be guaranteed a certain quality of service, namely, that it will not be dropped based on its type. However, I think that it should be possible to pay for upgrades of service beyond that base level, as long as it does not interfere with what another person has payed for.

But who is to enforce this QoS minimum, to ensure that the ISPs are not segregating and treating packets different based on their type? by dragging the FCC into this, we are asking the lion to guard us from the wolves. but if we don't, the wolves may eat us in the night.

If a new board, either gov or ideally inter-ISP, were set up with the sole purpose of preventing packets from being segregated by type, that would be the ideal solution, as long as it did nothing else, as the FCC most likely would. Whether the current legislation is a step towards or away from this, I don't know, as I have not read it yet. How does everyone feel about this solution, anyway? an industry board dedicated to ensuring that there is no discrimination against certain types of traffic?

To be clear I still think everyone is underestimating the power of the people. So I'd be more willing to accept a third-party non-government group to try to handle this but I still think it the market can handle it.

Net Neutrality does not mean the Government controls the internet, or the FCC can censor content. What Net Neutrality does, is it prevents Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) from affecting the content that is delivered to you the consumer. They can’t deliver certain websites quicker or slower, or control content you can or can’t access. An example would be that ISP decides that World of Warcraft is eating a large amount of bandwith, they in turn ask Blizzard to either pay to deliver the content or ask you the consumer to pay to access the game. A better example is a service provider such as AOL decides that Google’s search engine is a competitor to their search engine and blocks access to Google so your only option is to use AOL’s search engine.

The Government is not involved in any way other than saying you must provide content equally. The FCC is not involved in what content is delivered; there are no fines for a site using the seven bad words. This does not involve making sure you have multiple internet providers in your area. This doesn’t even involve tiered services. This involves making sure content flows freely and unabated. We have seen a possible world where Net Neutrality does not exist and a service provider censored a concert broadcast. There’s a reason so many from so many view points have come together on this issue, Net Neutrality is a good thing and needs to be enshrined.

Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Manager
www.theeca.com

Hasn't there been talk about replacing the FCC with the FTC in terms of enforcing the law? Why not do that?

Skyler,

When those laws get put into place the same people who supported net neutrality will either drop support or rise up in arms against them. The whole point is to get Big Government (tm) to protect us from Big Business (tm) that's it. If they try to regulate content the supreme court will throw out the bills with lightning fast efficiency.

Although for now future bills is a possibility, not a guarantee and if they do pop up acceptance of net neutrality probably will not translate into support of those bills. We'll deal with the future regulation attempts if they pop up seperately one at a time. For now though there looks like a need to protect us from Big Business(tm) and if you have an idea that does not involve big government (and could actually work) then I think that'd be a perfect solution. Until that happens though we have to humbly request big government's help.

@Skyler

By definition a 3rd party with governmental powers is in fact part of the government (plus as has been repeated elsewhere on this sight, it's unconstitutional to let a 3rd party have governmental powers).

@Skyler

I think that would be a good idea too, but in the abscence of that, what other options do we have?

It kind of strange how Obama is the one championing most of the electronic freedom causes, yet Hillary won in Silicon Valley.

@Father Time
My thoughts exactly. I guess my definition of what a government should do is fundamentally different from most others. I'm kind of a minarchist.

Simply put.

No Net Neutrality = Sites have a choice to pay or not get a decent connection, if any

Net Neutrality = All sites load equally and dependant on content.


that's as simple as I can say it. there's nothing about "governemnt controlling teh internetz!11!1" here.

it's about fairness to all websites.

DCOW:
it comes down to slippery slope and who is put in charge of the regulation. from the legislation: each broadband service provider shall...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 substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;
who decides what substantially degrades the use of such network?

Bi-Partisanship: FUCK YEAH!

Goddamit. What happened? Net Neutrality used to be a black and white issue.

Please don't make it gray. PLEASE. I want an issue that is BLACK AND WHITE FOR ONCE.

Just ONCE, I'd like to take a stance that I KNOW that I'm right. But noooooo, some of you had to ruin everything by making the issue GRAY.

@Fallenone
To think of it fundamentally, ask yourself this: what is government? What should a government (at its basest level) be?

Then ask yourself this: do I trust government regulation by the FCC based on its track record, or do I trust ISP's based on their track record?

Either way, there are things that none of like with either side. Personally (per my previous posts on this issue), I will err on the side of free market.

Also, the people have a bit more COMPARATIVE control over government compared to control over corporations.

If you think the oil/energy industry is apart of a free market then you must not know what a free market is. Do some more research please.

[...] That’s why the Entertainment Consumers organization (ECA) has joined with the SaveTheInternet coalition and is backing Net Neutrality legislation proposed by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). [...]