web counter

May 9, 2006

Net Neutrality 5-09-2006

ME Liz Strauss wrote this at 7:12 am

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

COPE Telecom Bill Affects Net Neutrality, Local Cable Franchises and Funding for Public Access
[via Cause we all know how well it worked with radio…]

AMY GOODMAN: Is this a reprise of what happened when Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who used to head the F.C.C., tried to push through the media consolidation rules, the changes in them?

ROBERT McCHESNEY: I really think it is, because I think what we’re seeing is this across-the-board outrage at the corruption of the process in which powerful special interests sneak through these privileges that benefit only them. And their public relations, when it’s subject to scrutiny, is laughable. It doesn’t hold up. And that’s why they have do it secretly, because they know if once the public hears about this and they go to the websites like savetheinternet.com, which is the intersect that all this coalition, right and left, has come together, where all of the information is collected. Once people hear about this, they absolutely are outraged, and the big guys can’t win, and that’s their main worry now, because we have to stop these bills this summer. We can’t let this go through and force Congress to go through an election cycle this fall and have to answer for this before the voters of this country and then come back next year.

Information Toll Road

Who is in favor of network neutrality, Microsoft, Yahoo, ACLU, Amazon, Guns Owners of America just to name a few. Who is against it, AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, and Verizon.

This is not a blue state or red state issue, nor is it a capitalist vs. Socialist, it is the battle of who controls information. As of right now, the information superhighway is open to anyone who wants to pay a small fee for service or to a company to host a site, if this bill passes congress and the senate, the superhighway will turn into a slow toll road.


John Carroll On Net Neutrality by Broadband Issues

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. John Carroll of ZDNet:

The Internet is not threatened by access tiers. In fact, it can be enhanced by making new bandwidth-heavy services more economical and reliable in ways that would be impossible given a naive enforcement of “net neutrality” rules.

I could not have said it better myself. I am terrified of this becoming a large, politically charged issue, in which all rational technical discussion is thrown aside because the Technorati love Google and whatever Google wants, Google gets. I just can’t possibly see how the government can do a better job regulating this problem than the market.

Let’s say, for example, that Comcast decides to degrade all VOIP services except their own. Do you have any idea how loud the outcry would be from their customers? Would they really shoot themselves in the foot like that? Are we all so naive as to think that large businesses truly hate their customers?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This


Filed under Business Life, Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends |



C'mon. Let's talk!

17 Comments to “Net Neutrality 5-09-2006”

  1. May 9th, 2006 at 7:43 am
    Blog Marketing, Blog Promotion for Newbies » Blog Archive » Been A While… said

    […] So, thanks Matt Cutts! Though it is a few days old it is certainly relevant, (at least until the telcos destroy the Internet), Notifying Webmasters of Penalties. You’ll notice how some web sites make the mistake of not offering a way to contact them. As a matter of fact, I may be guilty myself so, just in case, I do have a way . […]

  2. May 9th, 2006 at 10:00 am
    ann michael said

    Hey Liz! You’ve really got me thinking about net neutrality. One thing that occurred to me is that there’s more than a little hypocrisy present around it. I’m not saying whether I think it’s good or bad - that’s a whole other debate - but I’m wondering why companies expect neutrality when their own practices are not neutral?

  3. May 9th, 2006 at 10:03 am
    ME Strauss said

    Hey Ann Michael,
    What a perceptive question. I’ve been worrying over that one for a while. That’s why I have been showing both sides as much as I can. Though I DON’T like either side much. I don’t want either to win.

  4. May 9th, 2006 at 10:22 am
    ann michael said

    Funny you should say that - I’ve decided that I can’t stand the childish nature that debates like this can inspire. Each side tries to prove its point by presenting a dramatic and ridiculously extreme view of what would happen if their position didn’t win and both sides become annoying! (PS - I did link to your Net Neutrality page today because I decided to write about the apparent hypocrisy of it all!)

  5. May 9th, 2006 at 10:23 am
    ME Strauss said

    Thank you, Ann Michael,
    Of course, the bigger problem is that hypocrisy or not it will affect us how it all turns out.

  6. May 9th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
    watcher said

    The big web presences favor net neutrality because it will save them money. The ISPs don’t favor it because they stand to make money. But government regulation is something that should be used conservatively, AFTER gross mismanagement is discovered and not just because it MIGHT be discovered. (And discovering abuse of web content if it occurs should be a pretty easy). Consumers might be caught in the middle, but we’re the ones buying the services on both ends. I trust our judgment in guiding the market far more than I trust a bureaucratic agency.

  7. May 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Watcher,
    Your argument has merit. The word *our* scares me a little. I’ve too often seen *our* ideas go astray as *we* think *ourselves* into a corner. The government, big business, they are no better . . . though I think if the munis took over and raised it to a higher cause there might be a chance, maybe not.

  8. May 10th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
    Stevens said

    Net neutrality is a non-issue. No one is violating it and no one will for the simple reason that doing so would be incredibly foolish. Cable, Wi-Fi, and Satellite would swoop in and steal business.

  9. May 10th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
    pkp646 said

    If net neutrality where a problem, and I don’t think it is, I just don’t see how getting the government involved could be a good idea. Old men being sold on the issue by lobbyists is never a good basis for law making.

  10. May 10th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
    ME Strauss said

    I understand your points completely. My mind can follow what you’re saying. But I know the human species and know that logic doesn’t always win the day.

    For example: Why did you just post twice with two different names? That seems really silly.

  11. May 10th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
    Luv2Box said

    Maybe there needs to be regulation, but certainly not at the hands of the FCC. They are tied too much to Washington. My concern about passing net neutrality is what will happen to innovation and competition? Seems that every time big government gets involved in business, innovation is squashed and that hurts me - a big user of the Internet!

  12. May 10th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
    ME Strauss said

    I’m with you on the FCC. I see so many ways our country is a problem just because we’re so darn BIG. My worry on this whole thing is who gets to pick? Any answer I come up with ends up with a possible conflict of interest in the end.

    I’m almost ready for a PBS version of the Internet, but I couldn’t stand the begathons.

  13. May 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
    watcher said

    ME Strauss,

    I can see your point regarding the risk of “thinking ourselves into a corner”. I guess I just trust consumers as a whole over a ponderous government agency when it comes to monitoring Internet practices and supporting the companies that use their ‘powers’ wisely. Network neutrality can be maintained by the people, but once government has control… five, ten, twenty years from now after they’ve had time to do to the Internet what they’ve done to Medicare… who’s to say how ‘neutral’ the net will be.

  14. May 10th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Call me Liz . . .

    Well, when you mention Medicare, you make a really strong point. Trouble is I’ve worked with so many big companies and seen what happens as soon as they reach that point of about 50 million, say 200 employees — they lose the vision, the culture. You say Medicare I get scared. Then I think Enron and I get scared again. Then I think of the mob mentality. Whoa

  15. May 11th, 2006 at 5:31 am
    hank said

    At the end of the day, I just trust the market more than I trust the members of Congress who not only have a limited understanding of the internet but who are beholden to special interests on both sides of this issue. Having said that, I’m surprised that more legislators aren’t scared to death to become part of the posse who first regulated the internet…

  16. May 11th, 2006 at 6:08 am
    ME Strauss said

    Hi Hank,
    or the group who regulated the airlines or the telephone companies . . . we’re still paying for all of that. I know what you are saying.

  17. May 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am
    MRT said

    I would rather see the market decide the winners and the losers on its own. The government and the FCC would only create a problem where one doesn’t exist. As is mentioned, public radio has been decimated thanks to the FCC. Hopefully, the internet can remain our least regulated form of media.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!