Net Neutrality - Why Should You Care? - Comments Page 1

Thanks for explaining that in simple terms.

To expect the government to control the internet is to give up free speech. Seriously you think they would regulate honestly? You don't think they'd filter out conservative ads in favor of democrat ads in an election year? Seriously? There is no such thing as "limited regulatory powers". The government abuses their power very single day!

If you email your representatives and senators it better be to tell them to stay out of the free market!

As long as there is freedom of entry into buying or selling internet services and competitive services, net neutrality shouldn't be an issue. If Charter or Comcast deliberately slow down my service, I will look for alternatives wherever I can. The beauty of the free market system is that wherever a problem is created, someone will find a solution and market it. Granted there are infrastructure limitations currently but a technologically savvy can always find alternatives.

Thanks, Bob, for attempting to give both sides of the issue their fair say. Well done.

My guess is that in general, those who favor a net neutrality policy also tend to favor government intervention and protection in other areas of life; and that in general, those who do not favor a net neutrality policy also tend to favor limited government intervention and the capitalistic philosophy in other areas of life.

In other words, while arguments on both sides are high-sounding, it's mostly a matter of one's political inclination.

I tend toward a conservative/libertarian perspective, personally. Several years ago, when net neutrality first became an issue, I thought net neutrality was only "fair." Upon further reflection, I've changed my mind. I've concluded that--as you pointed out in your article--there are other ways that are just as effective for ensuring reasonableness (if not fairness). These other ways do not involve an additional layer of laws and regulations.

My problem is that I am forced to use Comcast as my hi-speed ISP as I am too far away from a Century Link Central Office and so cannot get DSL. Since Comcast was given a monopoly on cable service I can be truly screwed if Comcast does the nasty stuff possible without NetNeutrality rules.

"Others claim it's a victory for free enterprise,...Internet companies should be free to manage the flow of traffic...in a way that benefits both them and their customers."

Corporations have a dismal record for being ethically and morally responsive to customers. It is always the bottom line.

With our dysfunctional Congress, and politics driven by big money as a result of the Citizen United ruling, I have NO hope!

Sign the petition to enforce net neutrality if you want freedom.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Freedom from...? The irony here is that opponents of net neutrality claim the same thing.

I appreciate the naive idealism that wants all of us to believe that Congress is influenced by the likes of you and me - in fact, we all know from bitter experience that money dictates Congressional action. And we all want to believe that government regulatory agencies really do regulate for the "common good", but we all know from bitter experience that regulatory agencies consistently refuse to exercise their authority to regulate - witness the effective actions the SEC took to prevent the economic catastrophe of the past 8 years. I wouldn't trust Congress, or the courts, or any regulatory agency to do anything that might actually benefit anyone other than the oligarchs who pretty much control our country. Thank you, Bob, for outlining the issue. I have little hope anything meaningful or useful will come of this.

bob, with the domain you have of the simple way of writing English language, I nominate you to do a form letter that could be put online, so we could then send to our government representatives..

I have Comcast and have been happy with the Triple Pack, but just Friday Verizon installed FIOS on my block and they will carry all the same sports packages that I like. I am lucky to get 5.7 and 2.9 Internet speeds which at one time were in the 20's. If I can get it all for less I will switch. I watch Netflix and Hulu+ a lot. OTA is impossible here unless you want to watch all of 2 Networks and dozens of Shop[ping and Religious channels in Spanish.

This is a tough issue. Bob's opinion Is very valid;>>>>>>>>>>>(BUT)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Further, the FCC's proposed ban on treating some kinds of data differently than others could actually be a negative for consumers. There are advantages to prioritizing some types of data. I think, for example, that it's reasonable to make sure that VoIP (Internet phone) traffic takes priority over downloading email, so voice quality is good. And that users who want to download pirated movies should either get lower priority, or pay more for faster service.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But too much "prioritization" could ensue also.
At the extreme, VoIp would "own" all the bandwidth.
I tend to look at the FCC's decades old, apparent successful allocation of Frequencies for Tv & Radio and tend to think that IF Bandwith allocation is necessary, the FCC would be less wrong than "Corporate Self Governance" such as what brought down the Home loan industry.

Without precise particulars, either way could be right...Or wrong...

I fully agree to your suggestion regarding the FCC and the FCC and their actions should be made fully transparent and accountable the public at large and not merely to Congress.

Dear Bob,
THANK YOU so much for a coherent explanation of an issue that had me scratching my head. At least, I know what is going on now. I very much appreciate you and your very informative articles.
Nezzar

Thank you for an objective presentation of the pros and cons of net neutrality. As a libertarian I would come down on the opposition side. The government should not be butting into private enterprise, especially to address speculative fears which bureaucrats are conjuring up. Do big companies sometimes behave "badly"? Sure they do, but not nearly as badly as the government does. Ratcheting up government regulations "just in case" is likely to have very bad consequences.

Unlike a lot of young people, I'm old enough to recall when AT&T was a government regulated and enforced monopoly. Prices were high and innovation was non-existent. All we had were dial-up phones, and they belonged to AT&T; you only rented them. Yes, AT&T was broken up using anti-trust laws, but the real change was the removal of restrictions on competition, based on the premise that AT&T was no longer a monopoly so the government no longer had to control every facet of telecommunications. The result was an explosion of innovation.

These days there are still lots of giant telecoms and ISPs, since by its nature telecommunications requires a large and expensive infrastructure. But there's no single monopolistic company, and there is more than adequate competition to prevent really bad behavior. It's not just that we as individuals have alternatives. In some locations there may be more limited choices than elsewhere, as Paul Given commented above. But overall there are lots of alternatives, and if (for example) Comcast tried to screw an individual customer or discriminate against a web site without an extremely persuasive reason, the impact would instantly ripple through the Internet to its entire customer base. Other customers would flee to other providers where they could, the bad publicity would be horrendous, their stock price would plunge, etc.

These days more than ever the free market is capable of harshly disciplining "bad actors". As voters we have some limited influence over elected officials, but when major problems arise we have far less ability to discipline the government when it is a "bad actor" than we have as consumers to impact private companies. Net neutrality is a pseudo-solution looking for a hypothetical problem.

I meant to say "rotary dial phones" rather than "dial-up phones" in my previous comment.

This is falsely represented as an objective presentation of both sides of the argument, when the pro-neutrality argument is a cartoon version featuring alarmist fools. The court did not say that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require net neutrality, only that they could not do it under the 'common carrier' regulations. The court went out of it's way to say that there was every reason to believe that such regulation should exist and the FCCs motive for so regulating was sound, proper, and necessary.

Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association, a political lobbying organization formed by members of the Internet industry, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon, argues that without any rules in place to protect the openness of the Internet, innovation on the Internet will be in jeopardy. He says that companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have been able to thrive because of the Internet's "innovation without permission" ecosystem, which provides a low barrier of entry to anyone with an idea. He cautions that the success of the Internet to date should not be taken for granted.

"The Internet Association supports enforceable rules that ensure an open Internet, free from government control or discriminatory, anticompetitive actions by gatekeepers," he said in a statement.

Mozilla Sr. VP Harvey Anderson says the court's decision is alarming for Internet users because it will also provide broadband operators the legal ability to block any service they choose, which will undermine the once "free and unbiased Internet."

Net neutrality is among other things a free speech issue with the internet at it's core being a free and open technology with the network providors properly being end-to-end dumb to the content being sent between end-users. Would you think it fair and reasonable that your phone call quality could depend on what you were saying?

This is a bit reminiscent of the controversy over Roosevelt's rural electrification program. There was controversy at that time about government intervention and the cost - especially with the country recovering from The Depression. National control over pensions and senior health care was also very controversial at the time they were started. Now, individuals of all political stripes support rural electrification, a national pension and senior health care funding. It would seem that the real problem with the Internet is that there is no uniform national network. In some regions services and connections are much slower and efficient than in other areas. Do we want a country where services goes to the majority and is less where the population is thinner? It is starting to put us behind Europe. With a national network of uniform quality the question of network neutrality may be resolved. Or should we advocate privatization of all government controlled institutions in the name of free enterprise - for example privatizing the TVA and so on. On the other hand, one benefit of government involvement is that obscene CEO salaries are somewhat curbed.

I see this as the bought & paid for green-light for the ISPs who also offer cable TV content to choke off my ROKU streaming bandwidth. "They" (the ISP/Cable Corps.) saw their profit margin decline as more & more of us 'cut the cord', and without Net Neutrality they won't be able to continue to bleed we selective viewers for the 500 channels (+ commercials) that we don't care to watch.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this issue - I think both sides make some valid points - but I want to thank Bob for his clear and concise wrap-up. This kind of post is why I am an avid reader!

Here's something to think about, though. While I agree that free market principles *should* keep ISPs in line, don't forget that most of us are locked into 1 or 2 year contracts with our ISPs as well as our television and telephone providers. And sometimes, the terms of these "contracts" change - how many times have we seen satellite or cable providers drop certain channels because of failure to negotiate terms with those channels? If our providers make us unhappy, or if a competitor comes up with a better deal, we are often limited in how quickly we can react and make a switch. Also, as someone has already pointed out, for those in certain parts of the country, there really is no competition because only one service provider is effectively available in their region.