“The network neutrality debate, which is expected to surface again this fall, is a faux issue that if mandated by Congress is bound to become a mess. Count me in the camp that Congress do nada about net neutrality,” Larry Dignan writes for eWeek.
“‘Net neutrality’ is a term few can agree on. For Google, Yahoo and eBay, mandating net neutrality means that telecommunications giants will have to treat all Internet traffic equally. For net neutrality’s staunchest supporters, the concept has become a quasi censorship issue (as if Verizon would tell its customers they couldn’t use Google). For those telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon, net neutrality means they couldn’t charge for enhanced services. For Internet users, profiled in eWEEK this week, the end of net neutrality would be downright scary because costs could go up—or not. Perhaps startups would be shut out—or not. No one knows what will happen, since the debate is really a fracas between Net and telecom behemoths battling over their interests and trying to prod Congress to fix a problem that doesn’t exist yet. In other words, the histrionic levels in this debate are high,” Dignan writes.
Dignan’s reasons why Congress shouldn’t get involved:
1. Congress will screw it up.
2. Fast lanes exist today.
3. All traffic isn’t created equal.
4. Telecom giants are already doomed.
5. Laws exist to thwart net neutrality concerns today.
Explanantions of the above five points in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so such regulation can often have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net as neutral as it is today.
Related articles:
U.S. Senate committee rejects net neutrality proposal – June 29, 2006
House rejects H.R. 5252 Net neutrality amendment – June 09, 2006
CONGRESS GET INVOLVED!
Many folks commenting here really don’t have a deep understanding of what will happen if net neutrality is not enforced.
They will be driven to websites that “pay the toll” to the local service provider. They will be limited in the bandwidth they use for communication (iChat). Grassroots movements will have trouble getting traction.
These are ALREADY issues. ISPs have blocked emails to clients which are critical to the service they provide. ISPs provide, “premium” bandwidth at a discount to folks that have “cable phone service” with the ISP- for like $10- month, but charge $39- month to folks who do not (TWCNY). This is a direct assualt on other providers ability to bring quality communications services to market (iChat, Vonage). Do half of you people realize this is happening, right now!? Or do you think your cable co is giving you a great deal to bump your speed for ten bucks because you use THEIR phone service?
Don’t be snowwed. I consider my ISP to be the provider of an information “pipeline” into my home. I don’t want my ISP to have ANY say in what travels on that pipeline!!! This is what “net neutrality is about! It’s not about government regulation. It’s about preventing monopoly/ for profit control over content.
“thought that VoIP was big deal in this debate. From what I’ve heard, if Broadband phone doesn’t get enough bandwidth, the sound quality is terrible. This would allow the telecoms to charge for their own services and deny bandwidth to competing services. I say it should be regulated.” THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. I GET A $29- DISCOUNT ON MY “PREMIUM INTERNET” B/C I HAVE A CABLE PHONE. THIS IS A DIRECT ASSUALT ON VOIP COMPETITION. VONAGE CUSTOMERS ARE CHARGED $29 PENALTY B/C THEY DON’T USE THE ISP PHONE!!!!
And to “KATE” you dope. Time Warner did not creat the internet. Verizon did not create the internet. Now they want to adopt it and control what’s on it. The big communications players in the US have consistently moved to slow the expansion of broadband access SO they could continue to thrive in their respective semi-monopolies.
DistantThunder
“I learned a new word, “histrionic.” One that I will probably never use. It’s one of those words people use to appear more educated than they really are.”
Here we have an advocate for the dumbing down of society, … oh sorry, an “advocate” is a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. Now now, you don’t get all overly theatrical on me, … er, I mean “histrionic”.
Now now, you don’t get all overly theatrical on me, … er, I mean “histrionic”.
Sorry meant to say
… you don’t need to get all …
Oh well, “best laid plans of mice and men” and all that.
Damn, I let my “education” show again.
Those people saying Congress should leave the net alone don’t seem to understand that it works now because we currently have net neutrality rules. They aren’t laws, just agreed upon rules that all of the Telecoms and ISPs follow. Some of them want to change the rules, which is why Congress may get involved: to protect the current system.
Eliminating net neutrality will create “haves” and “have-nots.” That is why the telecoms/ISPs want to do this, because they can make much larger profits that way. While the market is a good thing and the profit motive can lead to innovation, the internet is part of the commons we ALL share ownership in (taxes payed for a good chunk of the infrastructure… thank you Al Gore). As part of the commons, companies that profit from the internet have a responsibility not to abuse the public trust.
People under the influence of the GOP want to romanticize the free market. History has shown time and time again that there is no such thing as a truly free market. An unregulated market is quickly dominated by monopolies and trusts that stymie competition. Corporations will abuse consumers, workers, the environment, and the market if given the opportunity. Only through regulations do you ensure an market with competition, fair wages, safe work conditions, a clean environment, and safe products (look up the progressive era). That doesn’t mean government running things, just keeping corporations from the excesses and abuses they inevitably engage in while seeking an ever greater share of the almighty dollar.
Problem with good old “Free Market”ers is that they have their eyes on “Three card Monty” or the “shell game” when corporations have moved on long ago to phishing or some other elaborate electronic scam to rip EVERYONE off blind. Stop living in the 50’s and take your blinders off. “Free Market” is DEAD and it’s death mask simply embellishes the dangerous ogres call corporate citizens that systematically killed it. WAKE UP, you no linger live in the quaint world of mom and pop shops competing against one another but in the playing arena’s of such monsters like ADM, G.E., Boeing, Pfizer, etc. etc.
I am NOT saying we should simply dismantle capitalism but these real dangers to democracy and real liberty and freedom must be reigned in by, yes, strong government regulations and laws. Remember you can vote for your representatives NOT the CEO’s of these quasi governments called corporations.
To say the market place will take care if itself is naive. No one can guarantee that. It’s not like the average person can compete with telecoms by going down to the local bank and asking for a loan. “Hey, I’d like to start my own telecom – I need 5 billion dollars please”.
If Net-neutrality isn’t implemented it won’t be till sometime after the huge telecoms have raped and pillaged, that the government will reluctantly step in and “appear” to do something. And we all know how well the Bush team did with the Microsoft monopoly trial. They pretty much shut down the case.
Granted no one wants the gov. running anyones business, but there are things call regulations that keep you from eating sh*t in your food. That isn’t such a bad thing.
How can a global communications tool be rightfully controlled by any government? What is this China?