eWeek article

Here is an article I found from eWeek, in their magazine on July 24, 2006. It talks about the July 17, 2006 debate on net neutrality between Vinton Cerf and David Farber. Cerf is for net neutrality. Apparently, “threats [were] made by AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre to refuse carriage of traffic bound for sites such as Google if…the company doesn’t pay for the privilege.” The FCC, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice all have jurisdiction over net neutrality, according to Cerf. Consumers can even file complaints. “Before 2005 broadband providers were controlled by common carriage rules that prevented providers from discriminating in terms of what traffic was carried.” The article next tells about Farber’s position against net neutrality. He “worries that congressional meddling might prevent the next major innovations from coming to the Internet.” Farber believes that poorly drafted legislation could bring unintended restrictions on the Internet’s use and worries that legislation would be too broad.

I found this article interesting in that I learned that before 2005 broadband providers were controlled by some sort of net neutrality rules. What happened to these rules after 2005? I’m sure that I can find more information on other legislation that has come into effect since this article debuted in summer 2006. I do agree that bad legislation can hinder net neutrality, but we need it. I don’t want an ISP telling me what websites I can and cannot view. Especially being a college student, if my choice of internet search engines are limited this will hurt my schoolwork. I like using many different search engines, which all give me different sources on a subject. I think it’s wrong how companies want consumers to pay more for better internet service. We shouldn’t have to, we should all pay the same price for the same information.