Net Neutrality

[rivan]

Dear Mr. (removed):

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about so-called "network neutrality." I appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Network neutrality is an issue that has come to the forefront with the pending 2006 telecommunications bill. As you may know, network neutrality mandates are government rules that would bar telecommunications carriers from charging different pricing to different customers. They are also designed to stop these companies, which own high-speed Internet "pipes" leading into your home and business, from discriminating against certain types of content in either pricing or speed of delivery. The debate over network neutrality centers on whether it is necessary to take steps to ensure access to the Internet for content and service for application providers and consumers or to allow the Internet to remain relatively free and unregulated. My concern with network neutrality regulation is that it would raise prices for those consumers who do not choose the most sophisticated applications; at this point I do not see why those consumers who tend to be lower income as a group should subsidize either the application providers or other customers who want services that require more bandwidth.

This past June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a telecommunications overhaul bill that included a network neutrality provision that essentially gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to stop telecommunications companies from blocking Web sites. However, it does not ban charging content providers differing prices for different delivery speeds. Also in June, the Senate Commerce Committee passed a similar telecommunications bill which did not include network neutrality provisions. I am not a member of that committee and will only have an opportunity to vote on the network neutrality issue should the underlying bill come before the Senate for a vote.

I share your concern about the need for free and open access to the Internet. At this point, I am inclined to believe that existing laws and FCC policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that such network neutrality regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. I would have to see the specific text of any amendment dealing with network neutrality before casting any vote, to determine whether additional government regulation is necessary. I will continue to watch this situation and will keep your views in mind should a telecommunications bill come for a full Senate vote.

Again thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call or write.


If you would like to contact me via e-mail, please visit http://talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Talent

 

[spidey07]

awesome, somebody that gets it. (he's probably a republican)

Keep government FAR, FAR, FAR away from the Internet.

Net Neutrality would completely and utterly KILL the internet. The lies being spread around by that camp are disasterous. We can thank our lucky starts that none of this net neutraility BS passed and hopefully never will.

 

[Schadenfroh]

You should have included John Stewart's take on Net Neutrality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY

 

[rivan]

While I really got a laugh out of that Daily Show clip, it's really disheartening to see the people in positions of power seemingly so ignorant on the subjects. Granted, I'm sure the Daily Show edited that whole thing together for maximum laughs, and I haven't seen the original transcripts anywhere to see if the guy's really that much a moron on the subject.

 

[yllus]

I tend to share Senator Talent's views. I see no reason that extremely heavy bandwidth users shouldn't be tiered off into their own price bracket so the rest of us don't have to subsidize them.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: yllus
I tend to share Senator Talent's views. I see no reason that extremely heavy bandwidth users shouldn't be tiered off into their own price bracket so the rest of us don't have to subsidize them.

Yes, as well as the part about preventing telco's from blocking/slowing down certain sites while allowing/speeding up other "affiliate" sites.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm inclined to see Talent working in Missouri in 2007. But suffice it to say, his staff (that wrote the letter) seem well informed and quite reasonable. The big question is to whether the FCC/FTC can be trusted to act in the public interest. The FCC has been sketchy at best since 2002.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: spidey07
awesome, somebody that gets it. (he's probably a republican)

Keep government FAR, FAR, FAR away from the Internet.

Net Neutrality would completely and utterly KILL the internet. The lies being spread around by that camp are disasterous. We can thank our lucky starts that none of this net neutraility BS passed and hopefully never will.

I am confused. You were for Net Neutrality in the past. What happened?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: spidey07
awesome, somebody that gets it. (he's probably a republican)

Keep government FAR, FAR, FAR away from the Internet.

Net Neutrality would completely and utterly KILL the internet. The lies being spread around by that camp are disasterous. We can thank our lucky starts that none of this net neutraility BS passed and hopefully never will.

I am confused. You were for Net Neutrality in the past. What happened?

I have never been for net neutrality. Ever. I was trying to explain what that BS was really saying and filter though the misinformation being spread about. I am however very impressed by the letter in the OP - it means they "get it".

If the search actually works just search my username and "neutrality" for some previous postings (that I put a lot of thought into)

 

[Stunt]

I wish more shared Senator Talent's views on this issue. Although looking at Wiki; I don't like his stance on many other issues. I don't know if net neutrality would be enough to make me vote for the guy.

Jim Talent

Against flag burning
Against illegal immigration and would invest $5billion in survalence
Voted against an amendment allowing Medicare to negotiate a bulk purchase discount for prescription drugs
Supported federal legislation that would ban stem cell research

Talent currently holds a significant fundraising advantage[18], due in part to support from the Bush administration; on October 11, 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney held a fundraiser for Talent

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I wish more shared Senator Talent's views on this issue. Although looking at Wiki; I don't like his stance on many other issues. I don't know if net neutrality would be enough to make me vote for the guy.

Jim Talent

Against flag burning
Against illegal immigration and would invest $5billion in survalence
Voted against an amendment allowing Medicare to negotiate a bulk purchase discount for prescription drugs
Supported federal legislation that would ban stem cell research

Talent currently holds a significant fundraising advantage[18], due in part to support from the Bush administration; on October 11, 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney held a fundraiser for Talent

Jim Talent is one of my Senators. He's not a terrible person, but his voting record is all but too predictable.

Talent does have a huge advantage in campaign dollars and I get a giggle at the poor splice job of Claire McCaskill's words on video.

 

[Aisengard]

Uh people, the government wouldn't touch "THE INTERNET". It regulates INTERNET BUSINESS. Not the world wide web itself. So many, many clueless people seem to forget this little fact.

 

[Tom]

Those of you who support net neutraility, and think Talent is on your side, fail at reading comprehension.

His position is the opposite of net neutrality, he is in favor of letting 2 phone companies and 2 or 3 cable companies, essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Tom
Those of you who support net neutraility, and think Talent is on your side, fail at reading comprehension.

His position is the opposite of net neutrality, he is in favor of letting 2 phone companies and 2 or 3 cable companies, essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it.

Nobody in their right mind would support net neutrality unless they want to kill the Internet. I dare any single person out there to prove that this hairbrained BS is a good idea.

And I'll severely disagree with your assessment. Nobody owns the Internet and nobody ever will. You've fallen for the BS I see...."essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it."

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
Those of you who support net neutraility, and think Talent is on your side, fail at reading comprehension.

His position is the opposite of net neutrality, he is in favor of letting 2 phone companies and 2 or 3 cable companies, essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it.

Nobody in their right mind would support net neutrality unless they want to kill the Internet. I dare any single person out there to prove that this hairbrained BS is a good idea.

And I'll severely disagree with your assessment. Nobody owns the Internet and nobody ever will. You've fallen for the BS I see...."essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it."

Well you could take an example from Norway:
The reality.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
Those of you who support net neutraility, and think Talent is on your side, fail at reading comprehension.

His position is the opposite of net neutrality, he is in favor of letting 2 phone companies and 2 or 3 cable companies, essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it.

Nobody in their right mind would support net neutrality unless they want to kill the Internet. I dare any single person out there to prove that this hairbrained BS is a good idea.

And I'll severely disagree with your assessment. Nobody owns the Internet and nobody ever will. You've fallen for the BS I see...."essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it."

The "proof" is the internet as it exists today. The policy you support is the thing that is unproven, the idea of charging content providers for access to the internet, with varying rates based on the whims of ATT, Comcast, and Time Warner, is a radical departure from the current internet, and will let them turn the internet into the wasteland that is cable tv.

Hope you like the internet when it's turned into Disneyland.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: M00T
Well you could take an example from Norway:
The reality.

Not the USA.

FCC wouldn't not allow that kind of behavior and has already shown they will take actions to prevent it.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: M00T
Well you could take an example from Norway:
The reality.

Not the USA.

FCC wouldn't not allow that kind of behavior and has already shown they will take actions to prevent it.

You are completely wrong, the chairman of the FCC already said he sees nothing wrong with letting the big ISPs in the USA do exactly the same thing.

Do you even know which side of this issue you are on ?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: M00T

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
Those of you who support net neutraility, and think Talent is on your side, fail at reading comprehension.

His position is the opposite of net neutrality, he is in favor of letting 2 phone companies and 2 or 3 cable companies, essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it.

Nobody in their right mind would support net neutrality unless they want to kill the Internet. I dare any single person out there to prove that this hairbrained BS is a good idea.

And I'll severely disagree with your assessment. Nobody owns the Internet and nobody ever will. You've fallen for the BS I see...."essentially own the internet and charge for it in ways that let them dictate the content, and limit who can succeed on it."

Well you could take an example from Norway:
The reality.

I think the hope is that a responsible Republican gets elected (don't laugh . . . they are out there) or almost any Democrat. Afterwards, we will hopefully see a federal government that works FOR the people.

Accordingly, telecos will be judged on the merits. If they upgrade services for their upper tier clients but everybody else stays the same, I see no problem with that. But if they re-partition to upgrade service for their upper tier and everybody else gets leftovers . . . I say whack 'em over the head.

I'm sure the telecos realize it's in their best interests to keep regulators on the sidelines by not being too aggressive. But the flipside, is that telecos do deserve a cut of google's action.

But ultimately it would be telecos picking winners and losers that would threaten the internet more than any of the legislation for net neutrality that I've seen.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Tom
You are completely wrong, the chairman of the FCC already said he sees nothing wrong with letting the big ISPs in the USA do exactly the same thing.

Do you even know which side of this issue you are on ?

Absolutely. The concept of BS net neutraliy (only a very recent buzzword) is completely a made up scare tactic.

The FCC and Telcos/providers simply will not and cannot harm others content. If they do the content provider can and will switch to a provider that doesn't do this. Even the customer can switch his broadband provider since the majority have a choice.

-edit- that's the beauty of competition, the customer always wins.

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
You are completely wrong, the chairman of the FCC already said he sees nothing wrong with letting the big ISPs in the USA do exactly the same thing.

Do you even know which side of this issue you are on ?

Absolutely. The concept of BS net neutraliy (only a very recent buzzword) is completely a made up scare tactic.

The FCC and Telcos/providers simply will not and cannot harm others content. If they do the content provider can and will switch to a provider that doesn't do this. Even the customer can switch his broadband provider since the majority have a choice.

-edit- that's the beauty of competition, the customer always wins.

You neglected my earlier post. The telcos will do it, and have done it in Norway already.

The big telcos have the money to do whatever the fvck they want. The "scare tactic" is necesary. People have to be amassed, and fear is a good way to do it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm inclined to see Talent working in Missouri in 2007. But suffice it to say, his staff (that wrote the letter) seem well informed and quite reasonable. The big question is to whether the FCC/FTC can be trusted to act in the public interest. The FCC has been sketchy at best since 2002.

the one time any ISP began noticeably slowing down packets of competitors the FCC slapped them down hard




seeing as how politicians probably don't know how to do much more than check their email, and that their aids probably aren't much more computer savvy (being gov't or public policy majors), i really don't trust them to do a network engineer's job.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Tom
You are completely wrong, the chairman of the FCC already said he sees nothing wrong with letting the big ISPs in the USA do exactly the same thing.

Do you even know which side of this issue you are on ?

Absolutely. The concept of BS net neutraliy (only a very recent buzzword) is completely a made up scare tactic.

The FCC and Telcos/providers simply will not and cannot harm others content. If they do the content provider can and will switch to a provider that doesn't do this. Even the customer can switch his broadband provider since the majority have a choice.

-edit- that's the beauty of competition, the customer always wins.

I don't think you understand how the internet works.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't think you understand how the internet works.

I am very familiar with the way the Internet works. If you like I can explain it to you.

Please provide an example of why providers shouldn't use quality of service to deliver enhanced services such as voice, video and data?

-edit-
you see the Internet is a series of tubes....

bad joke, but good analogy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: M00T
You neglected my earlier post. The telcos will do it, and have done it in Norway already.

The big telcos have the money to do whatever the fvck they want. The "scare tactic" is necesary. People have to be amassed, and fear is a good way to do it.

What in the world does Norway have to do with the FCC and us laws? Why do people have to be amassed? Why do you want to stop the progression of the internet with the BS? Do you really want to be stuck in the "best effort" delivery days of choppy video and laggy games?