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.

Without net neutrality, will consumers pay twice?

Consumers of Internet will probably have to pay much more if broadband providers are given the freedom of instituting a tiered service. If this happens, customers will have fewer choices and the costs charged to companies like Amazon.com, eBay, Google, and Microsoft will have to pass on their costs to their customers. Customers will either agree to pay more or go elsewhere. Do you think this is fair for the customers and/or the companies?

Read more.

Gamers hurting from bandwidth

So this is what it has come to.

Gamers having to change their playing time because ISPs can't offer the proper bandwidth during peak times. I wonder how this particular demographic will affect the outcome of net neutrality legislation...

O.o

What is Net Neutrality?

So are big dot com's just trying to hoard money? Is this why they want net neutrality?

Net Neutrality - A Royal Fable

Here is an interesting video against net neutrality.

How this will affect you

I found this great website that lists how a lack of net neutrality will affect many different groups, from political groups to teachers. It also lists what several companies, such as AT&T have planned, such as hike up prices. ISPs have already discriminated against websites. This site lists four instances, albeit two are from Canada. "In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme." So should we be worried? I'm not sure. Since there's only two cases since 2004, I don't think that's too bad. Canada has it worse than us here in the USA. It's an interesting site worth a look at.

Battle lines draws over net neutrality

The graphic above show the three sides to net neutrality. To find out more, click on this.


Supporters of net neutrality want new laws to pass prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitor's networks. If internet service providers allow preferential treatment to certain Web traffic, small broadband providers will suffer. Pac-West, an independent telecom provider, in Stockton, California fears that lack of laws on net neutrality will give large broadband providers the edge to block internet traffic from smaller providers.

Broadband providers like AT&T and BellSouth oppose net neutrality. These providers want to charge e-commerce companies fees in order to get the preferential treatment for their sites. Under AT&T and BellSouths' new business plan, fees that would be charged to e-commerce companies would cover the costs to broadband providers.

S 215: Internet Freedom Preservation Act

Here is a bill in Senate trying to protect net neutrality. It was introduced by Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Olympia Snowe of Maine. They have tried to pass this bill in the past and succeeded. "It would ensure that all content, applications and services are equally accessible, prohibiting broadband network operators from blocking, degrading, or prioritizing service on their networks." S 215 would amend the Communications Act. The FCC can enforce fines on businesses that don't follow this bill, if passed. On this site it states that "Under current law they [broadband providers] can select preferred content that would move faster for consumers than other content which would unfairly be slower." This bill has been in the Senate since January 9, 2007. California's own Barbara Boxer is a supporter of this bill. So tell your state's Senator that you want this bill passed!

Weird but True......

Net Neutrality can't get weirder than this. Take a peek.

Where net neutrality began

Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, first used the term “net neutrality” in the early 2000s in one of his papers. He describes net neutrality, more properly known as network neutrality, as “information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized – when they are a multiple platform for multiple uses…” He states that “a neutral network should be expected to deliver the most to a nation and the world economically, by serving as an innovation platform, and socially, by facilitating the widest variety of interactions between people.” So obviously, he is for net neutrality. Most websites that I have visited think that Tim Wu just made up the term net neutrality to make him more money. Later in the article he tells of net neutrality’s origin, when people were worried when cable companies combined with ISPs. Some remedies were anti-discrimination laws, and to allow users to choose their ISPs. Wu then states some problems that might come up on the internet such as blocking, termination monopoly pricing, violations of playing favorite networks – where carriers offer preferred treatment to one application over another, and transparency failures – where carriers fail to tell customers and application directors what they know. There are several more articles linked on his website and this page. These articles might be brought up in future blogs. I just wanted to let the populous know that Tim Wu first came up with the term “net neutrality.”

FCC article

Here is a Progress Snapshot from the FCC released December 2006 entitled Net Neutrality and the Role of States. The US Supreme's Court deicision, Brand X, and Orders from the FCC have declared that broadband Internet services are informational services and immune from state regulations. Basically, Federal laws would block any State laws on net neutrality. Both Missouri and Minnesota have tried to regulate broadband services with net neutrality but have failed. This article is basically opposing net neutrality. So is Big Ed's Swan Song right? Does it only matter how much companies contribute to campaigns and they get to call the shots? Looks like there will never be any federal laws made for net neutrality.

Big Ed's Swan Song

Here is a video that Lillian found. It's AT&T's view on net neutrality. Very interesting and entertaining.

Ninjas Need the Net Too!

For those of you who are concerned about the future of the internet, we have a very special speaker here to inform you about the dangers of corporate interference in congress.

And now, without further ado, "Ask a Ninja".

Verizon Ends Text Message Ban

Here's an example of how Verizon Wireless, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier was trying to control the internet. In this case, they were trying to bar an abortion-rights group from sending text messages to its subscribers. The only reason why they stopped is because they got caught and received criticism for it. Imagine the other information they're blocking, but haven't gotten caught yet.

The End of the Internet?

What would happen if telephone and cable companies ran the Internet's broadband? This hasn't happen yet in the U.S. But it's worth considering for the future.

Here's an article about what might happen to free Internet if phone and cable companies took total control of it with reduced government regulation.

How would you like it if phone and cable companies charged you for everything that you wanted to download from the Web. I would be disappointed and upset if these companies charged me for every single little thing I wanted to use over the Web. Definitely, I couldn't afford to pay for everything I wanted to download off the Internet. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of net neutrality. I want it to be kept that way so that everyone can have free access to all the information that's available on the World Wide Web.