Net Neutrality - Just The facts

By
Real Estate Agent with Compass
https://activerain.com/droplet/58pZ

This is a repost of a blog I wrote about Net Neutrality back in February of 2008 during the Presidential campagn. There seems to be a lot of false information about Net Neutrality. (What else is new?) I first learned about Net Neutrality 3 years ago when I did research about Craig Newmark founder of Craigslist after he left a comment on my blog.

Net Neutrality - Where the Presidential Candidates Stand (original post)

 

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality - is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Learn more in Net Neutrality 101.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

Instead of an even playing field, telco's and cable companies want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us bloggers on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

Below Ted Stevens (R) from Alaska & Head of The Senate Commerce Committee (at the time) explains how the internet works on the Jon Stewart Show.

Posted by
 
   


©Mitchell Hall 2006-2019

All content/images, unless noted, are the property of Mitchell Hall & may not be used without permission. 

nyc BLOG estate

 
          Call Mitchell Hall @ 917-312-0924
          Email: mh@MitchellHall.com
close

This entry hasn't been re-blogged:

Re-Blogged By Re-Blogged At
Topic:
ActiveRain Community
Location:
New York
Groups:
Politics And Real Estate
Active Rain MacUsers Group
Club Chaos
Blatant Politics
Tags:
internet
net neutrality

Post a Comment
Spam prevention
Spam prevention
Show All Comments
Rainer
140,201
Tony Hager
United Realty Texas - Denton, TX
Broker

It's always been said that the only people that make it to DC are the ones that can't hold down a regular job.  If people watched the government channels it would scare them to voting correctly. That was hilarious that he didn't even know email?

Oct 22, 2009 01:43 AM #1
Rainer
302,425
Terry Haugen STAGE it RIGHT! 321-956-2495
Stage it Right! - Melbourne, FL

Mitchell this is very much like the fairness doctrine governing the airwaves.  Once that was done away with, the money began talking.  I would be surprised if Net Neutrality was gutted, but then these days nothing surprises me anymore.  Thanks for the concise information on the topic.

Oct 22, 2009 03:01 AM #2
Rainer
42,405
Dynamic Page Solutions
Dynamic Page Solutions - Mesa, AZ

The net is already suceptible to domination by those that have the biggest SEO budget or those that are the most tech savvy, not that I'm against techies, but corporate control would devastate this great marketing and free speech frontier. I'm glad you re-posted your thoughts, are you aware of any progress made by the corporate lobbyist?

Oct 22, 2009 03:37 AM #3
Rainmaker
597,741
Mitchell J Hall
Compass - Manhattan, NY
Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn

Tony, Thanks. It is pretty frightening that some one with such little knowledge of the internet was head of the Senate Commerce Commitee.

Terry, This has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. It is about being able to choose the content and services consumer's want over the internet. It is about keeping the internet free and neutral. Content will always be king. The phone companies and cable companies do not produce content. They are opposed to net neutrality because they want to control the content and charge content providers for delivering content to the consumer.

Anita, Content providers and technology entreprenuers are for net neutrality. The phone and cable operators are opposed to it because they only provide the service for transmitting the data. They want to control the data rather than only transmit it. AT&T had to be broken up once before. Their only business model that ever worked was a monopoly.

 

Oct 22, 2009 05:25 AM #4
Rainmaker
342,754
Elizabeth Bolton
RE/MAX Destiny Real Estate Cambridge, MA - Cambridge, MA
Cambridge MA Realtor

Hi Mitchell ~ Thanks for posting this - it really helps clear up some of the confusion out there.

Liz

Oct 22, 2009 07:01 AM #5
Rainmaker
597,741
Mitchell J Hall
Compass - Manhattan, NY
Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn

Thanks Liz, This is not about free internet acess for poor people or rural areas.  It is about keeping the internet neutral. I already pay $150 a month to Time Warner as my digital cable and high speed internet provider. I only want them to provide me with access to the internet. I don't want them to dictate what search engine or content I can use based on who pays them.

 

Oct 22, 2009 08:31 AM #6
Rainmaker
565,518
Mike Saunders
Lanier Partners - Athens, GA

Mitchell - as opposed to form VP Gore, I actually was there at the start of the internet (ARPANET), what you presented as facts,  was never the agenda. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even in the dreams. Even Cerf didn't foresee the explosive growth and interest in the internet.

With the advent of TCP/IP and other protocols, such as routing, it became possible to open the networks up to the public, as opposed to government institutions. It was this investment by private companies that made the internet available to almost everyone. The majority of internet transmission is on private infrastructure using private equipment. Not allowing the private investors to control their traffic, under this net neutrality proposal, is basically making them responsible for the quality of service delivered to their end users by dictating how they can manage QoS (Quality of Service) which is internet traffic management. The government proposal puts all of the expense on the provider and the benefits to those that make little or no investment into the infrastructure.

Net neutrality had nothing to do with the inovations that happenned because of the internet. That's kind of like Gore taking the credit for creating the internet. It was happenning without him.

The only way this can succeed, so that this forced egalitarianism on the internet will allow clear voice calls, video and audio with out interference, et al, will be for the end users to be charged more for access since the providers will not be allowed to charge the originators for the volume and type of traffic that they dump onto the network.

Perhaps you will be happy with mediocrity of service, and higher costs for end users so that apps like Skype, which chard end users for their service can make $billions off of end users while consuming anothers limited resources. However, having evolved for the world of 1200 bps internet access to megabit rates, I don't want to take steps back to the transmission congestion that will slow things down for everyone. I don't want Skype traffic interfering with my internet access. I don't want to pay more for my access so that someone else can dowload movies at high speed.

Oct 22, 2009 09:13 AM #7
Rainmaker
597,741
Mitchell J Hall
Compass - Manhattan, NY
Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn

Mike,  Congratulations, I didn't know you invented the internet. I've actually been on the internet since the late 80's. My first account was with Prodigy. I don't have a problem paying a provider for internet access but that is all I want from my provider internet access.

Currently I pay quite a bit and I have mediocre service. I'm in a very wired part of the country with heavy trafic. I'll pay more for faster service. I've tried different providers none of them are as fast as I would like.

I pay for telephone service but they don't control who can call me. I pay Con Ed for electricity but they don't control what electrical appliances I can use. We pay them for their investment in infrastructure.

Unfortunately I'm stuck with Time Warner they were given the cable franchise for Manhattan decades ago. As a Time Warner customer, I'm concerned that they also produce content. There lies the conflict. What if I prefer Fox new's website instead of Time Warner owned CNN? I prefer google. What if Microsoft pays Time Warner to only give the end user access to MSN for search.

I believe content is king and always will be no matter how it is delivered. Infrastructure changes and technology becomes obsolete quickly. There won't ever be a new google or craiglist or you tube or facebook if a few phone companies and cable operators control what the end user can access. I'm all for free enterprise my problem is with monopolies.

Are you advocating that as bloggers and webmasters we should pay the ISP's for our website and blog traffic?

 

Oct 22, 2009 10:44 AM #8
Ambassador
3,674,552
Patricia Kennedy
RLAH Real Estate - Washington, DC
Home in the Capital

Wait!  Wait!  Did Ted Stevens get sent back to Alaska?  Or is he still being scary as hell in the Senate

Oct 22, 2009 12:00 PM #9
Rainmaker
565,518
Mike Saunders
Lanier Partners - Athens, GA

Mitchell - I never said I created it, I worked on getting it running with the folks from LLL (I was a contractor specifying, installing and testing the equipment) in 1978 - 1982.

I also spent from 1986 to 1993 (except for a couple years where I was on a consulting project with Boeing) helping transit to IP capable networks from proprietary and developing the tools and infrastructure that enabled those such as Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL, and other ISP's up and running providing service to both residences and businesses.

Most people are not stuck with or limited to cable internet, almost anywhere. I had charter cable here. It sucks. So now I have a different system that is terrific, costs less and doesn't use cable (except for distribution throughout my home). There are different options almost anywhere, and I would expect certainly in Manhattan. I know plenty of people that have wireless to the home at not much higher costs than cable or other services.

As for your last question, aren't we already? What I am saying is that if a company, whether small business or large, decides that it wants to stream terabits of data across the internet, and that streaming interferes with people getting to my website, or me getting my mail, and ISP should have the right to manage their networks so that I can get my 10 meg throughput that I am paying for. Why should I subsidize Skype users to screw up my internet access just so they can have a phone call.

I can see rules that do not allow content blocking, I can even support them. However, traffic management should be allowed so that the end users are not hosed because of stupid concepts of content egality.

Also, there is no provision (unless it has been rewritten) to account for internet access in places like hotels, convention centers, Starbucks, etc. These kinds of locations are, in effect, ISP's. If these places start having to provide "net neutrality" they will have to start charging for it.

This attempt, in it's current form, is going to make the internet more expensive while lowering quality of connection. But then, doesn't government interference almost always do that? (Remember the expensive and in many places crappy phone service we used to have under a strictly controlled government supported monopoly). We would not have this internet that we do if we still had that same monopoly.

Oct 22, 2009 12:04 PM #10
Rainmaker
597,741
Mitchell J Hall
Compass - Manhattan, NY
Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn

Pat, It's an old video. Still funny!

Mike, Impressive credentials. Verizon is selling FiOs, I had their DSL which wasn't very good before I got cable. Fios is supposed to be better. My home is wireless but comes through the cable modem.

I want my ISP to manage traffic but without blocking my content or users from my website. I've always paid for usage. Back in the early days of AOL I remember paying them by the minute. I loved AOL back then.

Oct 22, 2009 03:15 PM #11
Rainmaker
566,519
Delaware Junk Removal Residential And Commercial Hauling Clean Outs
Delaware Junk Removal 302-530-9186 - Wilmington, DE
Whole House Clean Outs, Basements, Garages, Attics

Mike- You are correct, the free market is the reason the Internet has made its gains over the last 25 years or so.  Adding the govt will only slow things down and make it more expensive!

It reminds me of obamas health care, spreading the wealth to the lazy.

Oct 22, 2009 04:19 PM #12
Rainmaker
211,941
Inna Hardison
ha media group - Orlando, FL
Wordpress for Real Estate & Design, Print HaMedia Group
Mitchell - if only AR featured this one to balance out the currently featured and widely reblogged bit of disinformation on the subject... PS: thnx for ths bit of Jon Stewart at his best...
Oct 23, 2009 06:12 AM #13
Rainmaker
597,741
Mitchell J Hall
Compass - Manhattan, NY
Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn

Inna, Thanks. As you can see I originally posted this back in February 2008. The FCC adopted Net Neutrality policy in 2005 enforced in 2008. I believe Bush was the president back then. It is not about Obama. It is not about government take over.

It is as much about government control of the internet as Freedom of the Press is government control over the press.

Anyway yesterday turned out to be a good day for bloggers and webmasters, Google, Craigslist, Ebay, Amazon Activerain, and all the online libertarians, entreprenuers, creators and innovators and a bad day for telecoms.

The telecoms would like to control the internet. The telco's whine and spend tons of money on political campaigns when they don't have a monopoly. History always repaets itself.

Oct 23, 2009 08:21 AM #14
Rainmaker
145,765
Nogui Aramburo
Linda Craft & Team, REALTORS® - Raleigh, NC
Real Estate Professional in the Raleigh Area

Mitchell, at least we can be assured of Net Neutrality -for now. BigCorp usually gets what it wants, and this maybe no different.

It's funny everyone is for Net Neutrality - its how we get there is where we disagree. We want the government to garauntee it will never be tampered with. Others say, it will stay free if we just leave it alone. We know that won't happen. Eventually BigCorp gets its greedy little fingers into everything.

It's a series of tubes man!

Oct 28, 2009 09:14 AM #16
Post a Comment
Spam prevention
Show All Comments

What's the reason you're reporting this blog entry?

Are you sure you want to report this blog entry as spam?

Rainmaker
597,741

Mitchell J Hall

Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn
How Can I Help You ?
*
*
*
*
Spam prevention