ReveNews
-
NAVIGATION
-
TOPICS
-
THE REVENEWS BLOGGERS
-
QUICK CONTACT
Who Needs Net Neutrality? Not Verizon, AT&T, or Comcast
Been reading the news last week? Once you got past all the news on the California wildfires, maybe you saw a few pieces on various ISPs doing exactly what they said they would never do: be the arbiter of what content they were passing to consumers.
First was actually further back, in late September. Did you read about the “isolated incident” where Verizon Wireless denied a request by Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to use its mobile network for a sign-up text messaging program.
Next came news that AT&T reportedly changed a service agreement that previously included language permitting the company to cancel accounts of Internet users who disparage the company. Nice.
Then this week I read how Comcast Corp. was interfering with file sharing by some of its Internet subscribers. After denying it, Mitch Bowling, senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, admitted: “During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay – not block – some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested.” The AP found instances in some areas of the country where traffic was blocked or delayed significantly.
Is this the end of it? Not my a long shot. Have you heard of Sandvine? They claim to have “eight of the top 20 broadband service providers in the US” as customers. What pray tell do they do for their customers? They help big ISP’s profitably manage their Internet traffic. How does an ISP improve the profit? Maybe by reducing bandwidth expenses? Turns out that the software can also forge TCP RST packets that cause Internet connections to drop – a technique regularly used in mainland China. Just what we need. Our ISPs breaking connections when they see us connect to a site they don’t approve of or when we use too much bandwidth.
Net neutrality is in my opinion, one of the most important issues of our time. It is the only thing between us and complete loss of freedom of speech. The corporate controlled broadcast media spouts talking points for the powers that be and completely perpetuate the matrix that we live in. If we don’t have an independent voice in an unfettered Internet, that matrix will be complete and inescapable.
Grassroots mass movement to retain net neutrality is our only hope for reversing the insidious overreaching of our current government. Totalitarianism seeks control, democracy seeks freedom of speech.
I’m curious whether you all consider Internet access to be a public utility like gas, water, and electric?
I believe that if it is developed with public funds (Darpanet), then it is owned by the public….at least the intellectual property. Now the pipes are owned by big telecomm, and herein lies the problem…..Collusion! The FCC and big telecomm have been colluding on spectrum sales and everything else. The FCC awards an oligopoly to big telecomm, big telecomm in return pads the party candidates at the appropriate time. Same situation in defense, and many other industries.
By one account, fascism has been defined as collusion between government and corporations. That is just what we currently have. Call it a corporatocracy, or call it fascism. But please, don’t call it a republic (and certainly not a democracy.)
But I digress. The internet should be protected as a public utility. It is this equality of transportation on the infohighway that will provide the same growth and innovation that the other mentioned public utilities provided early in our nations history. And if there is anything we need right now, it is at least an equal footing with the rest of the world on the Internet. We’re already lagging behind in broadband due to being duped by the U.S. telecomm industry after they were awarded the rights to carry our Web traffic. Now that they have it, they don’t want to invest in the build out they promised at the time. Meanwhile Asia and Europe are eating our lunch in broadband and cellular technology and speed. Makes me sick! Greedy bastards!
Mark -
If the Internet were “protected as a public utility,” would you then be OK with costs being based on usage like other public utilities?
No, definitely not! The highway system is open and free to use. The internet should be no different. Toll roads, or more appropriately, fast lanes based on tolls the way it is being proposed by the telecomm, is simply a way for those with deep pockets to dominate the internet. The internet has been the great equalizer, the grass roots common ground. It should not be dominated by heavyweights that can afford to pay more. That is its inherent value. That is why people are shifting from broadcast media to the internet as their source of information. Because broadcast media is dominated by special interest groups…corporations and vertical industries. Allow the same thing to happen to the Internet and it will be ruined! And so will the last bastion of free speech.
> The highway system is open and free to use.
Not in my state of NJ.
Not only are their tolls, but larger vehicles pay higher tolls, since they’re having a great impact on the roads.
I understand there are greater use of toll roads on the East coast. I don’t like that model at all. It seems to me to be dipping off both ends, and providing advantages to those that are able to pay more.
You might say that education is the same way…private schools for those that can pay more. Which is fine. I believe this is appropriate for education.
Basic infrastructure is different. If you want to support a strong middle class, which I think is more important now than ever, you have to provide free and equal access to the infrastructure that enables that middle class….otherwise you simply become the land of the privileged and powerful. Whether that is appealing depends on your viewpoint, but one thing the privileged and powerful never seem to see is that a strong middle class is in their interest. Without it, when the middle class breaks down, you have tyranny. Its been that way throughout history. Support the middle class infrastructure or risk being pillaged by desperate people.
I’m going to extremes in this discussion, but it starts by chipping away at equality in favor of the privileged and powerful. That’s exactly what net neutrality is intended to fight.
I certainly haven’t read everything there is to read on the issue, but the seemingly objective coverage doesn’t paint this as a class war.
For instance, http://www.news.com/Debate-heats-up-over-Net-neutrality/2100-1037_3-6049863.html talks about AT&T and Verizon planning to create a tiered Internet system that would require big bandwidth hogs like Google or Yahoo to pay more for their access.
And so presumably “Net Neutrality” would stop this tiered system for these mega giant companies.
Unless I’m missing something huge, how is this a free speech issue.
From what I’ve seen, the prices for basic access wouldn’t be impacted.
However, I would imagine that if the sites that require huge amounts of bandwidth don’t have to pay on a tiered system, then the overall price will rise for all.
Shawn,
I do see access akin to a public utility. Some cities also view it as one, and this is part of their justification for free WiFi. That said, I can see both sides of this. Cities build roads and don’t charge you for having more or bigger cars. They just make sure that the road is maintained and goes by your house. It is your responsibility to connect to the road and deal with everything on your property. But electricity, water, and gas (and sometimes sewer) have both base fees and usage based fees. You can easily compare access to electricity where you pay for what you use.
The difference is that the service providers never say that they will change the fees charged to the consumers. They want to charge the sources more money for better access. This would be like your city charging one power plant more money than the other because they were bigger.
> This would be like your city charging one power plant more money than the other because they were bigger.
Sort of like they do with corporate property tax? They’re charged more for occupying more space.
I don’t equate taxation with fees for service. Taxation is a way for the government to fund itself and has little to do with paying for specific infrastructure. Most often, property tax funds schools whether or not you have kids, and gas tax funds transportation (usually public) even if you never take the bus or train. Property tax is not based on consumption of space, it is based on value of the property. Would you want to tax users based on the value of their computers or Web sites based on the value of their servers?
> Property tax is not based on consumption of space, it is based on value of the property.
In the same area, the value of property should increase when the amount of space increases.