It is at this time that I would like to sponsor a Political-Neutrality Bill. The point of this bill would be that politicians would be forced to think with their brains (yeah, I know it's a stretch) instead of just being gliders pulled behind a party jet.

Why are they called 'parties' anyway? They should be called 'buzzkills'

In order to have "Net Neutrality," doesn't one have to start with "Gross Neutrality?" What does one subtract from the latter to get the former?

@Munch: That's crazy talk. Politicians don't have brains.

Excellent article.

First of all, aren't the ISPs privately owned (stockholders) companies who should be able to offer and price their product however they want?

Call me crazy, but free markets always (eventually) are the most efficient way to bring products to consumers... how is this any different? If the ISPs provide service that consumers view as flawed, won't this open up an opportunity for new entrants to the marketplace, and even possible improvements to service?

Believe it or not, government regulation is not the solution to every little controversy in the world.

Also, check "law of unintended consequenses" before you start the knee-jerk regulation.

@Xenocide: Oh really? Then what was Monica Lewinski servicing?

The government looked at the ISP's and said, "You call this a f@$k up, we'll show you how truly f@#k everything up, with style. Getim boys!"

So there's a problem with a company implementing a QoS (Quality of Service) ruleset to ensure all customers get good/decent service?

This bill would say that ISP's can't throttle certain traffic.

You cannot treat all internet traffic the same; not everybody wants to share their music and movies. Some of us just want to be able to play on xbox live without lag.

Yea right, I trust politicians to get this right. Let's attack somebody because they have lots of money. That's great public policy. If fact, lets make everything FREE AND EQUAL everywhere, with flowers and puppy dogs and granola. Then we can create a whole new vested interest that will bog things down in vague legal language that will make trial lawyer everywhere happy. But that is okay, because this problem is responsible for wars and starving the developed world. Wait…no…that was all the other well intended BS that Congress has done in the last decade. Whoopiiiii!!!!

@mauser:

Free markets are all well and good as long as there isn't a monopoly. Internet and cable providers have either monopolies or near monopolies (with the consumer having to choose the lesser of two evils) in many areas limiting choice and, therefore, allowing them to run rough-shod over the consumer.

I can't wait to read some new Ted Stevens quotes on this subject.

+ Watch video

@mauser: Every 'little' controversy? Glad to see that you are looking at the big picture here.

@mauser: Nobody said gov't regulation was the solution to all of lifes problems. But the major ISP's make it next to impossible for a new entrant to offer a product that the masses would enjoy more than theirs. That is why people like me get nervous when I hear about major ISP's wanting to dictate what content passes through to their users.

non net neutrality is analogous to the electric deciding which devices you have plugged into your house work and which dont

@arikmoon:
And when your xbox traffic is causing delays for the people who just want to surf the web and check their e-mail? You will of course be OK when the ISP throttles that connection. After all, more people surf the web than play xbox.

What you say? You paid for a fast connection on the theory that you could do what you wanted with it? Sorry.

let me try that again:

non net neutrality is analogous to the electric COMPANY deciding which devices you have plugged into your house's electrical outlets work, and which dont.

@mauser:
Many people have very little choice (if they even have one) about what ISPs are available.

And, even if there are multiple ISPs available, good luck seeing your ISPs competitors' websites if they are allowed to control what you have access to.

@ Citizen Kang:

You talk like AT&T is still the only company out there. Please don't use economic terms like Monopoly unless you know what you're talking about. Monopoly power is not correctly measured in the numbers of firms but the level of competition. And competition is healthy in telecom. Telecom is a capital intensive industry, it will naturally be limited in it's number of entrants.

@Ryan H:

The issue isn't an occasional spike, its the P2P apps that are damaging the other money making ventures like VOIP, surfing, streaming video from providers like apple and netflix, online gaming services...

@rlreif:

If your electric consumption was causing brownouts for that electric company's service area, I'm sure they'd want to do the same thing.

Just because you recieve power service from a power company doesn't mean you can use what you want...there's a finite amount of the stuff...just like bandwidth.

@mauser: The problem with your analysis is that it is the government's job to provide access to essential services, including information. The market determines which pizza delivery joints prosper, but the government provides the roads they drive on. The Internet, if you'll recall, was once billed as "The Information Superhighway". ISPs provide access to the network, but they have no right to enact tolls on different parts of the network. They are free to determine pricing for access based on usage, but not based on what parts you use.

Ok, fine, no takers on the joke. Moving on...

@mauser: You are correct assuming free markets, but as was subsequently mentioned, this is not a free market but a monopolistic one.

Truth is, the providers promise a certain level of service - they call it high-speed, and they call it unlimited. Now, these are inherently at odds, I reckon, because there is a physical limitation to the bandwidth that can be supplied. The providers have determined that the appearance of high-speed is more important than "unlimited - " so that's the tradeoff they make. And all that anyone can do is complain, because in a monopoly (or nearly so), there simply is no incentive for the provider to change the policy.

In our area, for example, we have TWC and ATT. If they both choose to throttle, it's game over, man, unless you spring for a T1 (which was down to about $400/month last I checked).

To my simple mind, the alternatives are a bit different. 1) Figure out a different model for throttling, and stop calling the service "unlimited." 2) Trade off in the other direction - still call it "unlimited" but stop making speed claims. 3) Build out fiber. Ha ha. And you lucky FIOS people shut up. Legislating net neutrality sounds good, but without some other changes, won't produce the desired results.

@arikmoon
but this issue is less about allowing ISP's to cap amount of bandwidth used (another issue, another argument) and more about whether ISP's should be allowed to throttle CERTAIN traffic, or possibly to block completely that traffic

using the electric company analogy, yes, if my usage were causing brownouts, the electric company would rightly cap my usage, but not determine that only a certain brand of vacuum cleaner would work when plugged in.

@dyermaker826: "Competition is healthy in telecom?" My nethers, it is.

And certainly not in the Internet-Access space. Even if you go to a third party for your DSL, all you last miles belongs to ATT. They are ALWAYS the closest link to you in the DSL food chain. And the only other alternative is cable, where we live - unless you count satellite and the aforementioned T1's - one of which bites, the other of which costs too much.

@mauser: I'm certainly a pro-business capitalist who hates regulation, but what we have here is a bill that forces ISP's to provide untampered access to the internet. That's a censorship issue, and private institutions HAVE NO BUSINESS making any decisions related to that. I personally think that not only does that need to be law, it belongs in the constitution.

Oh and to those of you complaining about being able to surf while I'm on Xbox Live or playing Battlefield on the PC, seriously, you can piss right off. If the ISP's have over promised bandwidth based on faulty formula's or wishful thinking our collective issues are with them, not each other.

@arikmoon: You should stay current in the issues you bring up. P2P is not the biggest drain on bandwidth, streaming video took that spot a little while back.

/get your youtube off my internet while I have torrents running.

@mauser: All free markets lead to are monopolies, and eventually fascism. The markets aren't magically going to have the best interests of the country in mind just because you keep your fingers crossed and let them do what ever they want. These companies are focused solely on profits, which means screwing over consumers as much as they can get away with, that's the efficiency you're talking about.

Take for instance that they are very loosely required to re-invest profits into maintaining their infrastructure (the same one our national economy depends on) with no strict regulation, they even swore before congress to do so, but of course they haven't, because that would eat into profit. Why would we the people want to leave so much power in the hands of these people without getting a say in how they handle such a vital part of our national infrastructure?

Look at any thriving economy in the world, and you will see a well REGULATED economy, of the exact model that we once had, whether it's China's protectionist trade policies, the EU's anti-trust laws, or India's strict laws that keep the wal-marts of the world out of India. And look at any economy in decline (ours for example) to get a prime example of what happens when the markets are not required to have the good of the consumers and the country in mind.

No, government regulation isn't the answer to everything in the market, no one has EVER suggested that, but leaving it up to the free market, or by it's real name, faith based economics, is idiocy that is a proven failure.

@rlreif:

I really do applaud your electric company analogy, it almost makes the point.

The fallacy with that argument is that the electric company has no "way/means" to detect what devices you have plugged in.

If Eureka vacuums were shown to be causing problems for the electric grid because they're consistently utilizing 60% of the power capacity for a service area, AND the electric company had the ability to throttle/block Eureka vacuums, I'm sure they would.

Apples to Oranges, they're both fruity and delicious, but their comparison ends there.

BTW, I just used they're - their - and there in the same sentence. That's awesome!

@Munch:

Think of politicians this way: Remember those assholes who were always on student council in high school, who weren't particularly intelligent but were proficient at bookwork? Who were good at parroting all sorts of nonsense and who basked in the praise of their keepers for doing so?

Those are proto-politicians. Extrapolate from there and everything makes sense.

hehe duopoly

I have to agree with mauser, at least in principle. As soon as the gov't shows it willing to regulate something like the internet, I think it sets a bad precedent, because IMO, how it operates should be determined by consumers. Furthermore, typically, as soon as one piece of legislation gets passed, two more pieces have to be passed as well to support it, and then you have to get people to enforce and adjudicate on it, and you wind up with a bureaucracy gone wild. As well, you start getting lobby and special interest groups pushing for more regulation, and suddenly the internet might not be working in anyone's best interest. I might be overextending my point a bit, but I'm just trying to paint a picture here.

To burden the discussion with one more topic, think security.

If a Net Neutrality bill were successful, your ISP would legally have to remove all virus/vulnerability traffic they're currently filtering.

No thanks. Net Neutrality is for people who use food stamps.

I still love the line in "striptease" where Burt is sitting in the back of a limo with one of his backers and says
"my brain has turned to shit..."
to which the other guy says,
"Thats why your in Congress!"
*both men, Hysterical laughter*
Burt "...you may be right..."

@arikmoon:

"If a Net Neutrality bill were successful, your ISP would legally have to remove all virus/vulnerability traffic they're currently filtering."

Fine with me. Last time i checked, they weren't very effective on that front.

@nutbastard: Agreed. That's what I have my anti-virus and firewalls for. Our ISP's are not doing a good job at that in the first place.

@arikmoon:

"No thanks. Net Neutrality is for people who use food stamps."

Discriminate much?

@arikmoon: While you're riding the ignorance train with the food stamps comment, why not throw racial groups in there too?

If there is no Net Neutrality, small businesses will NEVER be able to compete because, by it's nature, non-neutrality offers ISPs the "right" to throttle back the small guy.

Also, technically, the infrastructure tlephone lines belong to the government with an "expand/upkeep" deal for the usage.

Read up on Ed Whittaker from SBC Communications. This started a full year and a half before any blogger mentioned it!

Folks, demand more from your politicians and hold them liable.

Thats all.

@Citizen Kang:

Not so Kang. While cable and DSL/FIOS services are usually easier and less costly to acuire almost anyone has at least 2 or more choices in broadband internet access. Besides DSL and Cable there are Satellite options which can reach nearly anyone with a clear view of the sky.

You may not like the alternative options and they may not cost the same but free markets will and should dictate that, not the Government.

Consider also that the bill as depicted in this article forces ISP to become accomplices in distributing illegal material whether they like it or not. If you cannot restrict certain types of traffic how do you control illegal distribution of copyrighted material?

My opinion is that I want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.

@ Kanti_V2:

"Profits are bad and governments will fix everything." Come on, what a simplistic view of the world. We're not saying that markets are perfect. We're saying that government isn't always the answer. And on your ridiculous economic performance argument, WHAT!? You can't compare developing nations like China and India to us, apples and oranges. Why don't you move there and see how great it is for about 5% of the people who live there. As far as the EU, they are woefully behind us in economic performance. We hit a bump is the road and you blame our lack of regulatory intervention!!!??? Please stop typing. I'm begging you.

@Kanti_V2: "All free markets lead to are monopolies, and eventually fascism."

Are you kidding?! I know you aren't which is scary... scary how much you trust the government with power. Any oppresive society has given more and more power to the government not the businesses, in the guise of "protecting" the people from eachother. The more power we give to the government to regulate our lives, the greater risk of abuse of that power. This law would give them more power to control our lives. I have supported net neutrality because I think people have paid for bandwidth to use how they choose. But seeing many flawed arguments here makes me question that decision.

@rlreif:

No it's not. For the most part the use of electricity is perfectly legal. Sending informaiton over the Internet may or may not be legal depending on the material.

Net Neutrality is more like saying the highway patrol cannot stop you from carrying a bale of cocaine in your car on the highway.

@cowboyshootist: You didn't get the memo? The president has the right to declare you an enemy combatant for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. If you want the gov't out of your life as much as possible, you are speaking for the wrong cause.