I am a married father of 3. I produce and direct independent films. I blog. I design websites. I manage political campaigns. I operate a non-profit that advocates for victims of child abuse and molestation.
Nearly every aspect of my life involves using the Internet, from spending time with far away family down to the very living I make to support my family.
I pay for my access and I pay for my hosting and then, like everyone else, the Internet is what I make it, based on my own hard work and dedication. It is, in it’s quintessential nature, a more level playing field than any other aspect of American Life.
America is already behind most of the world in Internet technology and access because of the very same companies that want to add their own “pay more to play less” restrictions on what is becoming the last free speech zone available to a nearly global audience.
I need the Internet neutral to survive and provide for my family. AT&T, Verizon and Comcast don’t much care about those sort of things.
Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet’s gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don’t pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.
RESOURCES:
FTC Urges Caution On ‘Net Neutrality’ Proposals
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission warned Wednesday against regulations to ensure that providers of high-speed Internet service treat all content the same way, saying such rules could stifle innovation.
READ IT HERE
From Information Week
The news story about the FTC report notes that “the FTC sided with high-speed Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon,” and trotted out once again hollow justifications like “such rules could stifle innovation” and “”This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more — not less – competition,” which it probably didn’t even think up itself, but copied from industry propaganda.
The paradox is that these providers have been working very hard to stifle innovation and move toward less competition for years – take their well-funded resistance, at both national and state levels, to public WiFi and similar local initiatives, for example. U.S. Internet service providers deliver less service for higher prices than many other countries around the world. In April, when the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held hearings on broadband in this country versus others, the committee heard that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had just lowered the United States to the number 15 spot on the list.
Technological innovation in broadband access is a threat to corporate profits, and the FTC report comes down on the side not of the public interest but of the private interests.
As a government policy, this isn’t working. Communication Workers of America union puts it this way:
Our reliance on market forces, deregulation, and inadequate governmental programs has not served us well. We invest relatively less on communications; we are charged more for slower speeds; millions encounter a significant digital divide based on income and geography, and unionized jobs with good wages and benefits are being replaced by low-wage jobs with less training and higher turnover.
Read The Rest. It’s Important
Consider this: as a part of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, the telecom industry was given over $200B in increased fees and relaxed regulations to deploy fiber optic lines capable of 45Mbps or greater to 86M American homes. That would have given every American, even those in rural communities, the kind of broadband now enjoyed in Japan, Korea and Singapore. (Latvia will soon join their ranks too. Ouch.) The deadline for this promise? 2006.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t see that fiber optic goodness coming from anywhere but UTOPIA. Any chance to stick it to the duopolists in the cable and phone industries sounds great to me since they’ve spent so long putting the screws to us.
(FYI, I run a blog advocating municipal broadband efforts and showing how bad the telco infrastructure really is. http://www.freeutopia.org/ )
I agree with the complaints of monopolistic tendencies, ill-conceived government subsidies, etc. I don’t believe the telcos are playing fair or being responsible. Those are problems that should be dealt with.
However, “Net Neutrality” is a complex issue. I *want* my ISP to have to right to give suspected spam traffic reduced priority. I want my VOIP calls to have priority over regular HTTP traffic. ISPs need to have the right to make these changes without the burden (and glacial pace) of government regulation.
I’m not sure net neutrality bills as proposed are the answer. Remove subsidies. Make “hidden” fees illegal (e.g. “franchise fee”, “network maintenance fee”), and require disclosure of traffic prioritization choices. Increased transparency and better-informed customers will help carry the market in the right direction.
If you ever get a chance to hear Pete Ashdown speak on this issue, take it. I found his comments (and industry experience) enlightening.
Look, Pete is very smart, and I’ve heard his points on Net Neutrality before, but, when you boil it down to a base argument, Pete, along with everyone else, would end up having to TRUST the big companies not to screw us, and I don’t, and I wont.
When, honestly, has that ever worked in the last 30 – 40 years?
While I do support removing subsidies and requiring enhanced transparency, this doesn’t really address the issues involved with market dominance by a handful of players. When 90% of the Internet market is controlled by Comcast and Qwest and both of them decide that Be Evil(TM) is the new company motto… we’re pretty much stuck. As long as these kinds of anti-competitive environments exist, network neutrality should be mandated in some form.
Let me add, as a caveat, that, if even 20% of the House or Senate understood technology the way, say, Pete does, then I’d support, or at least wouldn’t be as afraid, of what these old elected people will do.
Hatch is a prime example, almost as good as Stephens, as to how money can easily corrupt the ignorant. I mean, when Chris Cannon is member of your delegation with the best understanding of technology, something is all fuckered up.
I’m sure that Hatch and Stevens spend weekends together smashing looms.