It's here!

I found this article in the Lodi News-Sentinel and the Stockton Record last Saturday, October 20. You think that net neutrality is something that isn’t happening now, something way into the future? Wrong! It’s happening now! Comcast, the second largest Internet provider in the U.S., hindered some of its high-speed Internet subscribers from sharing files online. Comcast didn’t want that much bandwidth used when people were file sharing. Also they didn’t want the Internet speeds of other subscribers to be affected. Comcast’s spokesman wouldn’t address this incident, but “confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly. Comcast doesn’t block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.” BitTorrent is a file-sharing network.

The Associated Press did some nationwide tests and found Comcast was performing data discrimination. Apparently, “company computers masquerade as those of its users.” Comcast customers can download files from BitTorrent. The only problem is uploading files, which are blocked or delayed by Comcast. When uploading the file, “each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating.” This message doesn’t come from the other user, but from Comcast itself. The AP compares this interruption to an operator interfering in your telephone conversation with another person telling you that you have to hang up.

The AP states that large Internet carriers have tentative plans that are now postponed, “to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee,” basically net neutrality. This was wrong of Comcast. Maybe now that Comcast has negative publicity it might stop this ludicrous practice. So now you know that net neutrality isn’t some issue of the far future, it’s happening now and you have to take a stance. Tell us what you think about net neutrality and these posts by commenting!

The US Justice Dept.'s View

I just read this very short article from BBC news, stating that the US Justice Department, said that ISPs should be allowed to charge for a 2-tiered Internet. So basically this means that the US Justice Department is against net neutrality. This article gives both views on net neutrality. I have seen through several other articles that colleges and libraries will suffer if net neutrality isn't enforced. This will happen because ISPs will charge libraries and colleges to pay more for access to different websites or applications. I believe that colleges get enough money they can afford this, but libraries on the other hand, that provide FREE access to the Internet, can and probably will suffer. Now the debate over net neutrality is in the UK. So if part of the US government is against net neutrality, how can they help enforce net neutrality? Interesting thought.

Push Renewed For Network Neutrality Rules

Washington' A Google-backed organization is claiming that recent actions taken by AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast, justify congressional hearings designed to revive an attempt to create rules that ensure that operators of high-speed Internet pipes are neutral about the traffic they carry. Read more............................

From my own perspective

After all of this reading, I begin to speculate from all sides. Try to put it all together, this giant jigsaw of legal jargon and internet mumbo jumbo that apparently holds a huge portion of the free world teetering on it's spire.

From my own perspective, Net Neutrality would be a nightmare for me, because I live in an area where there is only one ISP that provides broadband internet. There is no competition at all, so if my ISP decides that they don't agree with the sites that I condone, I have no choice but to comply; there is no option. It's their way, or the highway.

At the same time, I have to consider the innovation aspect of Net Neutrality. If laws were passed into place that demanded the ISPs to place a percentage of their money into Research and Development of data transfer, raised profits could end up benefiting humanity more in the long run. It all depends on where the money is going.

I guess I'm on the fence, along with most people reading posts on this subject. There are pros and cons to each approach, and although it would be nice to have a free ride, we have to wonder how slow progress will be if our technology is not properly funded.

Verizon cell phones censored content

This article was just posted yesterday. It's a little eerie to to think that if our media can be watered down to the standards of stock owners. What if our ISPs decide for us what to argue about, and what we should view as extreme? I realize that to an extent they already do, but how far down can we let it go before our online voice becomes obsolete?

Laws of net neutrality & our rights

Originally I got this information from Wikipedia, not the most reliable source, but at least it lists the sources, so I turned to those. Apparently, New York is the only state with net neutrality laws. NYCRR16 Part 605 states that, "Telephone corporations operating as common carriers must provide publicly offered conduit services on demand..." Also, "No telephone corporation operating as a common carrier shall unreasonably restrict lawful network. No restriction may impede access between a content service provider and a willing customer." All other bills on net neutrality that tried to pass were killed by the 109th Congress, such as S 2360, HR 5252, HR 5273, S 2686, and HR 5417 (all from the year 2006). The only bill that is still in discussion is the one I mentioned earlier in the blog, S 215. Wikipedia also mentioned that in February 2004 at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium, FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced the principles of "Network Freedom." These include the freedom to access content, freedom to use applications, freedom to attach personal devices, and freedom to obtain service plan information. In 2005 the FCC adopted a policy statement of these four principles. This is just a general overview of some of the things that Wikipedia brought up. But you have to remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Vint Cerf on Net Neutrality

Vin Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Officer, is in favor of net neutrality. He says Internet service providers want to restrict access to Internet applications for a fee. As a result, it will stifle innovation and growth of the Internet. He agrees that there will be more business opportunity for ISPs and online service providers if ISPs are in favor of net neutrality and not against it.