headerphoto

Net Neutrality And You

Look out: it’s a political post. I avoid these so much that I don’t even have a post category for it. But I’m writing because this is one of the most important bills (in my mind) that has gone through congress in a while, and it’s also one that I think can be very confusing. Allow me to lend my technical advice/perspective, and if you agree with me, there is a link to join the cause at the bottom.

The internet is built on the fundamental concept that I can send information from my machine to any other machine on the internet. Once the data is out on the internet, it’s just a data package traveling through the system among the trillions of others.

Unfortunately the term “Net Neutrality” has been co-opted by both sides of the battle. You also hear terms like “Internet Freedom Act.” How could you be against either term?

The bottom line is that Comcast, Verizon and the other internet service providers want to be able to choose which programs and websites you can use, or at least give some priority over others. Their side of the argument is that government should not have any regulation of the internet. On the surface, that seems like something I’d normally support. But not this time.

There have already been cases in the US and other countries were ISPs filter out products they don’t like. A big one is Skype which many people use for cheap/free phone calls. This is a direct competitor to Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast’s own voice offerings. If they are free to block any program they want, why wouldn’t they block Skype and make you pay to use their service? Or what about internet video? More an more people are watching TV shows on Hulu or video clips on YouTube. That takes a lot of bandwidth and reduces the amount of time you watch Comcast’s TV service. So why wouldn’t they block that too? There’s a great illustration (which I’ve used for this post) that shows what your ISP offerings might look like if the ISPs get their way: $10 for the video package with Hulu, YouTube and Netflix; $10 for music sites like Pandora; $5 for internet shopping on Amazon; etc. Does that really seem like a big leap from where we are now?

The worst part about all this in my mind is that allowing the telcos to pick and choose which bits they like will deal a strong blow to ingenuity and invention on the Internet. The most amazing thing about the Internet is how quickly a new idea can take flight and reach millions of people. If there are rules about how you can use your data packets and which sites different people can see, how will new products that we haven’t thought of yet get exposure?

After reading all the arguments, I was a bit taken aback when I learned what each side of the aisle was supporting. It’s no secret that I tend to vote conservative (understatement), but this time, I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue. Their Internet Freedom Act washes government’s hands of the whole situation and lets the ISPs do whatever they want. While “no government regulation” sounds like a good idea on the surface, I’ve just explained where it can lead (and has led already in other countries. Comcast has tried to do some of that in this country but has been overturned by the court so far.) But still, if my conservative brethren think this is a bad idea, it’s worth another look. The argument on their side that really gets me is “the companies paid to lay the cable, they should get to control it.” I’m not quite sure how to respond to that one except that we don’t really have competition in the ISP market. With many Americans having only one or two ISP choices, and a handful of companies controlling most internet access, capitalistic competition doesn’t seem possible. But maybe if it really got horrible enough, we’d somehow work around the existing ISPs.

I have signed the “Two Million Strong for Net Neutrality” petition at SaveTheInternet.com. (Click Act Now in the upper left.) This petition is for the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) and the website will automatically email your representatives. HR3458 simply says that no one (either government or ISPs) can prioritize or restrict data on the Internet. It’s not big government regulation so much as it is regulation against regulation. Please contact your representative and let them know how you feel (no matter what side of this you’re on.)

Published Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:30 AM by bwmartens
Filed under:

Comments

# Twitter Trackbacks for Net Neutrality And You - Studio711 - Ben Martens [studio711.com] on Topsy.com

Pingback from  Twitter Trackbacks for                 Net Neutrality And You - Studio711 - Ben Martens         [studio711.com]        on Topsy.com

Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:14 AM by Twitter Trackbacks for Net Neutrality And You - Studio711 - Ben Martens [studio711.com] on Topsy.com

# Social comments and analytics for this post

This post was mentioned on Twitter by studio711: Net Neutrality And You http://bit.ly/4kGRpD

Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:18 AM by uberVU - social comments

# re: Net Neutrality And You

Wow...nice change of pace coming from a conservative. I thank you for putting this out there and shedding some light for those who may be misled by the so-called Internet Freedom Act.

My heart is full and cheers to you.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:06 AM by Melanie

# re: Net Neutrality And You

Hi Ben! I'm one of those ones who made the argument, "the company paid to lay the cable, so they should be allowed to do what they want with it."

I understand that "really gets you" but consider this: that's a fundamental underpinning of private property. If you purchase a shed so that you can store your stuff in it, should I be allowed to just walk in and put my stuff in it too? Maybe I have junk in my yard that needs storing. See? It's a "public good" to all of our property values if I get the junk our of my yard. As such, you must let me use your shed.

I dunno, for my part, I'm going to defend private property rights here.

Another thing... you paint a slippery slope saying "couldn't the telcos block this or block that if they wanted to?" Sure, I suppose they could. So the question you have to ask yourself is: Why *aren't* they already? (Or if they are, why is the perceptible difference in net traffic minute and ultimately immaterial?) Because there competition isn't doing it, that's why. Because they would lose more customers and revenue from putting arbitrary restrictions in place than they would from allowing you and I to go to any site we want to go to.

Finally, you speak of how this has already happened in "other countries." You're right it has - as a direct result of the government regulating the use of the internet. Everywhere you see a nation that can't get to any and every web page they want to you see a government behind the reason that page is inaccessible. China, Cuba, countless Middle Eastern countries, Scandinavian countries - the story is always the same. It's the government blocking access, not the telcos.

Ultimately, while I completely understand what you want as the goal, this Net Neutrality stuff will achieve the exact opposite.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:04 PM by Ben S.

# re: Net Neutrality And You

Thanks for the comment BenS. Two things: 1) Comcast has already tried to block/degrade BitTorrent traffic but were told they couldn't by the courts. So yes, they are trying already. 2) The main country I was referring to was not China, Cuba, etc but Canada. I don't think anyone argues that we should have what China does. They do an large amount of traffic shaping/filtering already backed by what is basically their equivalent of the  "internet freedom act."

The bottom line is that this bill doesn't give government the right to filter the Internet. It says that NO ONE can filter the internet. All this talk about the government shutting down your website because of this bill seems like nothing more than scare tactics and FUD.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:02 PM by BenM

# re: Net Neutrality And You

Are you seriously comparing the Internet Freedom Act to the Communist Chinese lockdown of the internet? I can't think of two things that could be more different.

Get the government in on something and I guarantee you they will start meddling. That's their track record.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:15 PM by Ben S.

# re: Net Neutrality And You

Whoops! Bad editing. I added the China line after writing the paragraph. "They" == "Canada." Canada has what seems to be the internet freedom act.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:24 PM by BenM

# re: Net Neutrality And You

OK, I honestly don't know much about Canada's situation, so that could be a fair comparison.

Interestingly enough, I just did a product search on Google. I couldn't remember the name of her book, so I just put in "Sarah Palin". When sorted by "Relevance", which is the default, the book actually written by her doesn't show up in the first 20 pages, at which point I remembered the title (it's "Going Rogue") and I gave up.

I know it's a slightly different issue, but where are the Net Neutrality people complaining about the liberals at Google clearly modifying the common sense search results to point to stuff that denigrates Sarah Palin rather than her only actual retail product? All bits clearly aren't created equal at Google. Do we need to craft legislation to make them be fair in their search results?

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't think so. If they want to have ridiculous and irrelevant results for a political purpose, that's their right as a private company.

Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:44 PM by Ben S.