re: net neutrality, is this a good witch or a bad witch?

[idgiehkt]

I just got this e-mail. I think these are the good guys but I'm being extra careful because I know the telecoms are pulling some shenanigans.

"Dear (me),

The telephone and cable companies who want to control the Internet underestimated us.

Late last week in a strong bipartisan vote, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill - over industry lobbyists' objections - called HR 5417, the Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act.

Now we need to make sure that the full House of Representatives has a chance to consider this critical legislation.

http://www.commoncause.org/InternetFreedom

Tell the House not to block a vote on a free and open Internet. HR 5417 ensures that we will continue to enjoy net neutrality, the right to access whatever we want on the Internet, and to use any lawful application, without interference from our Internet service provider.

so, these are the good guys, right?

[htuttle]

1. "Net Neutrality" is a good thing

You are right to be circumspect, because the telcos are laying an awful lot of astroturf out there, but they are against Net Neutrality.

[idgiehkt]

2. okay, I just thought they might be using the term "net neutrality"

even though I know they are against it.

I got confused by that 'don't regulate' ad that was running on all the liberal blogs a couple weeks ago and now I am suspicious of everything. This e-mail was so blandly worded, as was the 'about' link on the commoncause website, that I couldn't tell for sure.

[htuttle]

3. I generally trust Common Cause

They go back a long ways, and have a good reputation in my world.

[bananas]

7. Yes, Common Cause have been around a long time, they are the good guys. nt

[On the Road]

4. I Agree -- Net Neutrality is Good

The phone companies (like my employer) grew on universal service helped by cross-subsidies and nondiscrimination among customers. (On edit) A lot of the cross-subsidies are gone, which is generally good. But nondiscrimination is very important. I think the telcos are cutting off their nose to spite their faces now. How soon people forget.

If corporations had had their way, the internet wouldn't exist. It would be warring fiefdoms like Prodigy and Compuserve with a fraction of the interconnectivity. All the development has been helped along by things thought of as poaching at the time. Graphics were a hard thing to swallow in the early 90s because of interconnectivity. Then there was streaming of various kinds. But now you have a multi-billion-dollar commercial juggernaut. It's still increasing productivity at a very rapid rate and flattening the playing field.

But it depends on all users having a good connection. I'm afraid eliminating net neutrality would result in a lot of people living in electronic ghettos with delays and slow transmission speeds. Very bad.

[flamin lib]

5. Yeah, these are the good guys.

Without the net neutrality in this bill my little guy real estate site would be at a disadvantage to the BigGuys. The ISP could adjust access speeds to make my site load slower. Microsoft could pay them to make Explorer the fastest browser. The same goes for other web applications--some could be made faster or slower based on extra fees paid to the providers.

Telecoms could price other broad band supplier out of the market and then cherry pick the best parts of town to provide service to.

Tell Rep Joe Barton (R TX) to keep his hands off your net! He owns a lot of AT&T stock don't ya' know . . .

[GoneOffShore]

6. There was a poster about a week ago

arguing AGAINST net neutrality from what appeared to be a Telco p.o.v. Very bizarre.

[bananas]

8. The guy who said he was a lobbyist?

Whatever happened to him?
Did we run him off?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. I do believe we did

It was fun, too. :)

[BurtWorm]

9. Yes, Common Cause is generally the good guy, and especially on this issue.

(Even though the Daily Show had some fun at Chellie Pingree's expense a few weeks ago--but that's another story. ;) )