Net Neutrality: action item for Delahunt/Meehan districts

Comments

1. bob-neer says

   May 24, 2006 at 11:01 pm

   The Berners-Lee article you link to is a start, and he is a very smart guy for sure (although an inventor, not an economist or a U.S. telecommunications industry expert), but I personally would like to know more before I conclude this is the way to go. If anyone has any references to good information on the subject, I’d be interested to see them.

   • lynne says

     May 24, 2006 at 11:14 pm

     Keep the internet exactly as it is, or let the Telcos change it in the way they want to in order to make money hand over fist (the goal of any corporation).

     <

     p>
     Are you advocating the possiblity of giving the telcos what they want? If so how come you are so trusting of the big telcos? Isn’t there a pretty huge historical lesson, having tangled in the past with the Ma Bells?

   • cos says

     May 24, 2006 at 11:19 pm

     “Net Neutrality” is the new buzzword for applying the tried and true common carrier model to the Internet.  “Common Carrier” is a model that says those who carry the traffic must treat all traffic neutrally.

     <

     p>
     The idea started with the railroads, when people worried that a railroad might compete with those who use it.  For example, if a railroad company decided to start a chain of stores, and used their railroad to ship inventory to their stores, they could ship it at cost, but charge everyone else more to ship the same products.  Then the stores owned by the railroad company would have an unfair disadvantage over stores owned by anyone else, and the railroad could push them out of business and build a monopoly.

     <

     p>
     In this century, common carrier was extended to the telephone companies.  Again, the idea is that they must treat everyone who uses their lines neutrally, no special deals for those they favor.  Because telecommunications is an underlying infrastructure for our economy, just like the railroads were, this enforced fairness makes the playing field better for competition and allows our economy to grow.

     <

     p>
     The road system, of course, is also a common carrier, but it’s owned and maintained by the government.  Railroads and telephones are equally essential parts of our economic infrastructure that are privately owned, hence the need for this kind of law.

     <

     p>
     Internet providers that were also long distance telephone companies have always been covered by common carrier law.  Other Internet providers were not, but the FCC and FTC had the authority to tell them to abide by the model, even though it was not required by statute.  In recent years, the FCC has stopped enforcing this, though they retain the authority to if they so choose, which has kept Internet providers mostly in check.

     <

     p>
     However, there’s a new bill in Congress that’s meant to overhaul the 1996 Telecom law, and rewrite most of the laws relating to telecommunications.  The core bill is the Barton bill, and it strips the FCC of authority to enforce net neutrality (common carrier for the Internet), and I believe also does away with any net neutrality requirements for the telcos.  There are attempts in Congress to amend the Barton bill to actually require net neutrality, which would be a big step up from where we’ve been in the past few years and into the future.

     <

     p>
     This is basically the next leap: from railroads, to telephones, to the Internet.  It’s a logical progression, and one we need in order to ensure the Internet remains the fair playing field it has been so far.

   • mem-from-somerville says

     May 25, 2006 at 9:11 am

     That’s what is great about net neutrality. 

     <

     p>
     As a small business person with extensive need for the internet, it is crucial to me and to many entrepreneurs that our access won’t be held hostage by the telcos.  In your best Brando voice in your head, imagine this:  you want traffic to your site, we’ll get you traffic for your site….

     <

     p>
     Here is a link to a group that is working towards maintaining net neutrality: http://www.savetheinternet.com/

     <

     p>
     I can’t believe I’m about to say that I agree with Sensenbrenner, but from this press release he explains:

     Chairman Sensenbrenner remarked, “This legislation is a necessary step to protect consumers and other Internet users from possible anti-competitive and discriminatory conduct by broadband providers. The FCC recently reported that 98 percent of American consumers get their high speed broadband from either a cable company or a DSL provider. This virtual duopoly creates an environment that is ripe for anti-competitive abuses, and for which a clear antitrust remedy is urgently needed.”

     “This legislation will provide an insurance policy for Internet users against being harmed by broadband network operators abusing their market power to discriminate against content and service providers. While I am not opposed to providers responsibly managing their networks and providing increased bandwidth to those consumers who wish to pay for it, I am opposed to providers giving faster, more efficient access to certain service providers at the expense of others. This legislation will ensure that this type of discriminatory behavior will not take place, and will help to continue the tradition of innovation and competition that has defined the Internet,” continued Chairman Sensenbrenner.

     <

     p>
     Tim Wu, professor at Columbia Law School and co-author of Who Controls the Internet, testified regarding network neutrality and the proposed legislation, and the text of his presentation is here:  Tim Wu on Interent Freedom and Net Neutrality.  This provides historical context and current issues.

   • tim-little says

     May 26, 2006 at 1:33 pm

     … Put together a handy little video that sums things up rather nicely, I think.