“Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are ‘hoping to destroy’ the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality,” Mike Zapler reports for Politico. “‘I came here to warn you, the party may be over,’ Franken said. ‘They’re coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.’ Net neutrality, he added, is ‘the First Amendment issue of our time.'”
Zapler reports, “Receiving a hero’s welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast… Franken, who was an aggressive opponent of the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, implored SXSW attendees to fight the political influence of the big telecom firms.
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: A plastic surgeon’s motto: “When fixing what’s not broken, be careful your ‘fix’ doesn’t break the patient.” If the latter does unfortunately occur, U.S. plastic surgeons are subject to malpractice lawsuits. U.S senators, FCC chairmen, and other government officials are not. They get paid no matter what happens. And, if they happen to break something along the way, so much the better, since they’ll get paid to “fix” it forevermore.
Fostering realistic, competitive ISP choice for consumers is the best way to maintain “Net Neutrality.” True supporters of the concept of “Net Neutrality,” rather than some bastardized version that’s only branded “Net Neutrality,” should focus their energies in that direction.
The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content.
That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn’t exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.
Depending on their requirements and preferences, some consumers will choose to pay more for premium service. Others will decide that they don’t need such high service levels, so they will pay less. Inevitably, the market will adjust, just as it has in the past, to this varied population and its preference for a highly diverse mix of services, quality, bandwidth and price. This is the hallmark of a competitive market.
Full article – highly recommended – here.
Related articles:
Speaker Boehner rips FCC bid to regulate Internet; likens ‘shocking’ national debt to Sputnik threat – February 28, 2011
House passes amendment to block funds for FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ order – February 17, 2011
Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet – December 28, 2010
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Tim Lee on ‘network neutrality’: Libertarian computer geeks should forge a third way – December 16, 2010
Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless’ – August 9, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 6, 2010
Never mind your political bent, Al Franken is the smartest, and wisest person on Capitol Hill.
@breeze: nice one
@C1: you usually stir the pot without a direct appeal to the zealots, er masses, are you feeling well? a bit off your game?
With net neutrality, you have to realize there are two major ways to begin to look at the issue: policy and politics. In politics, you essentially have a battle between two sides of an issue with major corporations on each side. The current corporate haves want to preserve the status quo and are willing to kick, scream, and pay; the have-nots are willing to do the same. But I don’t see why the government has to step in here at all. Oh wait, maybe if local governments had not given monopolies to cable and telephone providers, we would not need this. Okay, so, the solution to mistakes in government is … more government. Color me unimpressed.
As for policy, well, I am not enough of an expert to know. I tend to trust the market, and I will pay for what I want.
AT&Twill be implementing a new 150GB monthly usage cap for all DSL customers and a new 250 GB cap on all U-Verse users starting on May 2. BTW – if you are rich, you will be able to afford a higher or even unlimited cap. Is not this what Sen. Franken was talking about?
As long as there are limited suppliers, the supplier sets the price, not the market – that is basic economics. Mr. Peppers needs to go back to B school.
The guy is a sc..m SNL has been. As I remember, he wasn’t even funny. He must have bought his way to be a politician. How can this guy even be taken serious. Really! I mean, como on!
Here is what we have today. I have Verizon FiOS. It claims to give me 25Mbps (megabits) down (20Mbps up). This is a nice fat pipe. Through that pipe, it should take no more than 10 minutes to download an entire movie in 720p HD. In other words, Netflix should start streaming instantly. But no. Today, Verizon, Comcast, Optimum and others already actively throttle traffic from content providers that offer competing products. Netflix is effectively throttled to below 1.5Mbps, which is INSUFFICIENT for real-time streaming. In other words, you’d have to buffer more than half of your movie before you could start playback, in order to see the whole movie without interruptions.
Now, I’m paying good money for my 25Mbps. Netflix is also paying massive money to Akamai and others, in order to avoid Verizon’s common pipes and deliver their streaming movies directly to Verizon’s back door. All Verizon has to do is open that door and let Netflix movies into my home. Obviously, Verizon doesn’t want to do that. I can get 25Mbps on all other traffic (including YouTube and Hulu), but NOT on Netflix or Amazon.
None of the ISPs in NYC is any better. They have all begun throttling Netflix traffic, because there is no law preventing them from doing that, and no free market force to stop them. For ordinary consumers like me, the choices are Netflix, Apple, Amazon or Verizon’s own streaming movie rentals. Because all except Verizon’s own are throttled, they are no longer realistic options. Verizon is abusing their position as an ISP in order to prevent competition in their content rental business. No law exists to prevent this, and no free market force can correct this.
So, please, opponents to net-neutrality laws, how exactly do you propose we fix this?
Have you tried using a VPN service? It wouldn’t exactly solve the problem of ISPs abusing their power, but at least it would stop them from throttling your connection when you use Netflix/whatever they decide is competing with them. Or do they just throttle all encrypted traffic because they figure customers are trying to use a VPN to squeeze some actual net neutrality out of them?
One other thing continues to fascinate me about America (and I have said this many times before). Americans tend to be very proud of their democracy. Especially the conservative ones, they are very vocally patriotic and will always defend the greatest, most fair and free democratic country in the world (at least in their opinion). Yet, in the next sentence, they will voice deep distrust in their government, its organs, as well as their own elected representatives. The same government and same representatives they themselves elected in the most free and fair democratic system in the world.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my mind around this paradox. How can a conservative claim to have the most fair system of democratic government in the world, and in the same breath claim that the government is the source of all evil in the country?
Repubs have a great shtick going on. They rant about how bad government is, f*ck it up by starving it of funds, authority and filling it with tools- then point back at the fruits of their work and say “see, I told you so’.
When has the government EVER been starved of funds? Last year alone they did what – blew threw MORE THAN $1TRILLION on C R E D I T. If that’s starving, I love to know what you think a spending BINGE is.
I think you stole this from P.J. O’Rourke:
“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work… and then they get elected and prove it.”
P.J. O’Rourke is one of the smart conservatives…
“How can a conservative claim to have the most fair system of democratic government in the world, and in the same breath claim that the government is the source of all evil in the country?”
Not that I am a conservative (more of a bleeding heart libertarian, if I may steal their blog name), but I believe the answer lies in accepting the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People with good intentions, including politicians, ultimately will become corrupted by their power. Thus, we should remain skeptical of power being exerted in any form, whether by the government or business (typically, they work together, with one business or type of business using the government to punish other businesses). If you accept this idea, then you can easily, without a paradox, be both happy with democracy and unhappy with its current elected officials.
Speaking for myself as an American, I am proud of my fragile, creaking democracy, and especially love my freedom of speech. ‘Cept, it is more a republic than a democracy.
You people supporting “net neutrality” are delusional.
The main reason for the bill is to give the FCC control over the internet. I’m sure you’ll be kicking and screaming when you see what those clowns start to do…
As for throttling – some of you screaming against this are he very ones who were supporting AT\&T when they introduced capped data plans, arguing that it was necessary because of data hogs.
It’s very simple. The ISPs will either try to serve their customers with their existing infrastructure, and as those customers use more bandwidth start to throttle, or they will add extra infrastructure, and increase rates to defray the capital expenditure.
Which would you prefer ? No doubt you will rail against throttling, but then start to moan when your ISP fees start to rise.
At least under the current regime there’s a free market. Any time the Feds get involved inefficiencies creep in.
You didn’t read my post (obviously). The ISPs are not throttling because of some excessive use. They are throttling to STIFLE COMPETITION. VOD is big business for Verizon, Comcast, Optimum, Time Warner… And they are losing it to Netflix. Their solution is simple — throttle Netflix and make it useless, to force consumers to choose your (inferior and more expensive) service. Current open, free and unregulated market lets them do that.
How do you fix that?
Sue the bastards.
Franken is just a stooge, trying to justify the government explicitly taking over. He isn’t really a Senator anyhow.
At least Franken knew enough to actually appear and take the oath of office in person, thus making him a real Senator, unlike some of the newly elected thinking they could take their oath via television. So if he’s just a stooge, what does that make them? Stupid stooges?
“… They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.”
If I understand this correctly, I take this to mean multiple providers, each of whom is offering multiple plans. Does anyone here live in some community where this scenario actually exists… outside of cell phone data plans?
In the two areas I live in (about 20 miles north of Phoenix most of the year and a suburban community just outside Toledo) no such choices exist. Each individual provider has a single individual plan.
In my AZ home we have Qwest DSL and it’s the only Qwest service available in our immediate area and likely to be for the forseeable future. Quality of service-wise… it’s as low end as you can go short of dial-up. It’s $20/month.
Next step-up choices are either a local (later regional) wireless provider or a satellite system. Neither was inexpensive. The regional wireless company did have two plans (business or residential), but cost was the same… $69/month. We used the local wireless company for almost ten years… before the economy forced us to cancel.
I don’t know what satellite internet service costs now, but the last time we checked it was $130+/month bundled with TV service. Even when we had DirecTV, we didn’t consider them for internet service. Our wireless ISP cost us less and provided a faster connection.
Let me try to understand the arguments being bandied about here. But, as I am want to do in trying to understand things, let me change some facts.
I build a business on a plot of land that has no direct access to the public road. Nonetheless, I chose to build here. I chose to build here because I asked the person who owns the property between me and the public road if I could use his private road. He said yes, and did not charge me. Great.
I continued to build my business. Now, my neighbor wants to charge me for using his road, and wants to charge my customers for using the road. He claims that I put so much traffic on his private road that he cannot use it the way he wants to. I complain. My customers complain. the fact remains that it is my neighbor’s road.
Is this a fair way of over-simplifying net neutrality? If so, then for centuries, we have had a way to resolve this in the world of real property—easements (essentially, a legally imposed right of access), but there is also usually a fee imposed.
So, why can’t a provider charge Netflix a reasonable fee, instead of the consumer (who will eventually pay for it through higher Netflix fees)? If Netflix won’t, then I can cut Netflix out, and charge its customers.
I can see problems with my own hypothetical, but it is a place to start.
It’s more like: your neighbor buys the lot next to you and charges people less to drive on the that same road to his competing business, than he charges them to get your business. Finally your neighbor starts charging both you and your customers an extra fee to come to your business, but gives them lower fees and and a paved road to his business. He’s attempting to put you out of business. He competes by throttling/closing the pipe instead of building a better, or even as good, widget.
I guess what I am trying to say is if the information superhighway is now so indispensable to commerce (I am inclined to think it is), then if private parties cannot reach an agreement, then the law must find a way to permit commerce to continue, while respecting the property rights in the people who built the private road.
Doesn’t this make sense? Nobody gets a free ride on my private road, but they can pay for it. If I get too greedy, the common law can provide for reasonableness.
Then again, I ain’t no property lawyer, I just use property law when the Man tries to take property without just compensation.
Thank goodness Predrag and civilrightslawyer are here, they’re about the only ones that are dealing with the actual issue here, not trying to make this a generic political talking point, but actually dealing with the facts…
Anyway, you both have very valid arguments. Let’s attempt to merge them.
Let’s start with civilrightslawyer’s argument (at his suggestion), and work predrag’s into it. But let’s try to make it a little more comparable to net neutrality. Instead of having a business there, let’s just say I have a house at the end of this private road. I bought the land, built the house, and I agreed to paying a particular amount to travel down this road to get to town to buy groceries. It’s the only road I can use, there are no other options outside of moving somewhere else (that’ll be the exact same situation anyway).
So I’m happy, the road owner is happy, and the grocery store is happy. But then, the road owner gets smart, and sees the grocery store making profits. So, he opens up his own grocery store, right at the end of the private road, right at the edge of town. However, he jacks up the rates big time, so that the cost of the groceries are double that of the town grocery, just a couple of blocks further down. The new store is more convenient, being just a little closer. Plus, I can pay for the road access and groceries to the same person, simplying my expenses.
But the road owner is a b@stard, and decides that he will now only allow you access to the exit ramp of his private road that leads to the other grocer’s road once a year. However, you can go to his grocery store whenever you want, as often as you want. Next thing you know, we all pay double for our groceries, the road owner makes a huge profit, and the town grocer goes out of business.
See the real problem here? He’s leveraging one business to buy his way into another business. All of us Mac peeps (democrat or republican) should be able to see the similarity between this situation and Apple vs. Microsoft. (AND YOU ALL SIDED WITH APPLE THEN! )
However, I can see the road owners point of view as well. I mean, it’s his road, why SHOULDN’T he be able to use it however he wants? Why should he HAVE to allow access for everyone just because they’re paying for it? This is why most roads are controlled by the government. Because everyone needs them, and allowing companies to control them only creates unfair leveraging.
But at the same time, I don’t want to hand the entire internet to the government. Have them be responsible for maintaining it, improving it. (I mean, it never worked for roads and highways, right? ;)) That being said, can we at least allow the government to enact a law to tell the road owner to be fair in this very particular situation? Is that really going to “DESTROY THE FREE MARKET”. Hmmm…
The problem is that the corporations (road owner, grocery store) are fighting for their share holders, to increase their profits. Republicans are fighting for the road owners (cuz that’s who paid for their election), the Democrats are fighting for the Grocery store (cuz that’s who paid for their election), and no one is fighting for “we the people”.
Election reform now! Oh wait, this was net neutrality… sorry!
And thank goodness you’re here – your analogy is spot on!
Although I think the party fighting for “we the people” are the Greens. 😉
Even if he wants to be right wing on every other issue, it blows my mind that the moderator of MDN wants to be anti-net neutrality. The very notion of net neutrality is what allows independent creators of content to get their content out to the masses. What will that content be created on? Macs! Seriously, why does he support the side of the issue that will hurt the very thing he’s trying to promote? (Are you listening, Mr. MDN moderator?)
This a dangerous website when anything with politics and religion is brought up.
Al Frankenstein is correct on this subject, but every is too busy attacking the messenger to pay attention to message.
Wow!
Looks like the USA is going to explode into factions, state by 57 states!
I prefer the Americans abroad entity – at least they have broadened their horizons. And they are far less warlike and trigger-happy than their homebound nationals.
It begins with the lies and in-fighting.
While you guys are jabbing at each other over nonsense, you are missing the point of all this. Al Franken is warning us that there are those who want to end net neutrality. I cannot imagine the misery we will feel if that happens!
Why don’t you assholes get back to the subject. You know why? Because none of you could think for yourselves if you tried! You’re all a bunch of sheep, guaranteed you pulled into the conglomerate mess corp. grocery store in your not paid for SUV after doling out your credit card to buy watered down, hormone and corn syrup laced food. No matter how much you sit in front of your boob tubed nonsense making you completely brain dead staring at another plastic surgeoned 30 times around whore. You STILL think the government is YOURS! Too bad IT HAS ALWAYS been run by the elite super rich power hungry masons of the world. Just thought they might fsck with your heads for awhile. I am not going to say WAKE UP because you were already dead.