Questions on Net Neutrality..........

[panader0]

Will computer users soon have to pay more than their ISP fees to surf the web?
Who will make the money? (ATT, etc.?)
Who in congress supports neutrality and who doesn't?
When will this all happen?
I am betting, that if neutrality is not kept, that the internet will lose a lot of users.

[mccoyn]

1. Its a made up issue.

I havn't heard of any company planning such a scheme. Any company that does will lose customers. I believe the whole reason it was being put in was to get a large ammount of people to support the telecommunications bill without looking at the other stuff in it.

Now, if someone wanted to address real Net Neutrality they would address the server/client segregation that prevents peer-to-peer applications and forces a broadcast mentality on the internet. Its an actual problem.

[onenote]

2. I think folks are a bit mixed up here

Let's get something straight. There currently is no law requiring "net neutrality" (whatever that might mean). And, with the rarest of exceptions (a little phone company in the middle of bumfuck trying to block Vonnage), there have been no problems. Bandwidth size/speed has been growing rapidly and Internet applications keep getting more sophiticated. But thats not to say that more serious problems of favoritism and anti-competitive conduct couldn't occur down the road. The phone companies and cable industry take the position that since there is no problem now, there is no need for regulation. Others, including consumer groups and some fairly big players such as Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, want fairly stringent rules placed on Intternet network providers.

The telecom bill that is being debated in the House has a provision that codifies four net neutrality principles announced last year by the FCC (see below). The cable/phone entities think this goes too far; the consumer/Google et al forces think it doesn't go far enough.

The notion that net neutrality was put in the telcom bill so people wouldn't notice what else is in it is hilariously wrong.

onenote

FCC's Net Neutrality principles (would be codified and made enforceable under House telcom bill):

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;

3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;

4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

[mccoyn]

3. I'm not confused

1. I have no problems accessing lawful internet content of my choice.
2. I have no problem running applications are services of my choice (except for servers and peer-to-peer programs.)
3. I have no problems connecting my choice of legal devices.
4. I have multiple choices of service providers.

5. I can not run a server from home because all affordable providers limit upload bandwidth and use DHCP.
6. I can not run more peer-to-peer programs on multiple computers in my household because all affordable providers only provide a single IP address per home.

Because of 5 and 6 the internet is divided into clients (consumers) and servers (broadcasters) who pay a premium to be internet elites.

We have a real net neutrality problem, and it has absolutly nothing to do with the issues being proposed.

[onenote]

4. explain to me what is being "put in" the bill to keep people from

paying attention to what else is in the bill. That's what sounds confused to me. The bulk of the House bill is about "franchising reform" -- changes in the law being pushed by the phone companies to make it easier for them to provide video in competition with cable (by allowing them to avoid the local franchsing process and build out obligations). Since the cable companies don't particularly like the franchising reform provisions (although they are not as bad for cable as they were when the bill was first introduced), but the phone companies and cable are on the same side as to net neutrality, it makes no sense to suggest that the latter provisions are in the bill to keep people from paying attention to the former.

onenote

[mccoyn]

7. I haven't done that research.

I can see something being put in a bill called Net Neutrality that doesn't, in the least cover our real net neutrality issues. It covers non-issues. Its a lie. That said, every half-wit internet user will support Net Neutrality because of its name. The bill will be a shoe in no matter what lobbyists put in.

I say we should not support this because of two reasons:
1. It doesn't fix a problem.
2. It ignores a much bigger problem, while stealing its name. This weakens the real net neutrality debate.

I won't support something that doesn't fix a problem because it is only an opening lobbyists and their politicians can sneak stuff through.

[NashVegas]

5. The Thing About #3

Some of you may remember, about two years ago, some telcos were pushing legislation regarding streaming information and equipment for receiving it. I think this was mostly at the state levels. Anyway, the telcos were pushing for legislation that would allow them to write future laws - and one of the laws they wanted would have made ownership of streaming equipment (as opposed to equipment leased from the content provider) illegal.

[bananas]

6. Basically, it's an extortion scheme

Imagine the same situation with telephone calls instead of the internet.
Normally, you pay your local phone company for access to the phone network.
The phone company treats your calls to Home Depot and Ace Hardware the same.
Suppose the phone company wanted to extort money from Home Depot.
They go to Home Depot and say, "give us some money".
Home Depot says no.
Suddenly calls to Home Depot get dropped, are noisy, and sometimes "accidently" connect to Ace Hardware.
Home Depot starts losing customers and decides to pony up the dough.
Suddenly Ace Hardware has noisy and dropped connections.

[Ignoramus]

8. competition neutrality?

I'm really confused.

On common cause's web page they refer to the COPE bill as HR 5252 here:

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/HR5252_COPE.PDF

I don't understand legalese I guess, but the text reads to me as saying almost the opposite of what the web page says the bill says.

TITLE IV—MUNICIPAL
PROVISION OF SERVICES
SEC. 401. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERV8
ICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Neither the Communications Act
of 1934 nor any State statute, regulation, or other State
legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of telecommunications service,
information service, or cable service (as such terms are
defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing
such services to any person or entity.
(b) COMPETITION NEUTRALITY.—Any State or polit
ical subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or in
strumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof,
that is, owns, controls, or is otherwise affiliated with a
public provider of telecommunications service, information
service, or cable service shall not grant any preference or
advantage to any such provider. Such entity shall apply
its ordinances, rules, and policies, including those relating
to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance
bonding, and reporting without discrimination in favor of any such provider as compared to other providers of such services.

Unless I'm reading the wrong part, doesn't that say that no provider should be given preference over another?

[ed murrow]

9. Net Neutrality Seems to be Extremely Complicated

I think everyone agrees that the idea of net-neutrality sounds very nice but the reality of creating legislation to regulate the internet is a very daunting task to say the least.

I feel like the Internet is very open and neutral right now so I am not sure why we need legislation to ensure the status quo

[Ignoramus]

10. prevention

I vaguely remember hearing someone citing a comment by someone from one of the big companies saying something to the effect that "people are dreaming if they think they should be able to use our pipes for free", with respect to idea of making people pay to get preferable bandwidth.

So, if there is an effort by companies to do this, it would be a very good reason to want to put "net neutrality" into law. My question is, how is the bill I'm supposed to encourage congress to vote against, saying what people are saying that it says?

I'm scared, but I don't see it. Please someone!!?!?! Isn't this of urgent importance? How does it say what people say it says? I don't see it.