I honestly can't imagine the internet ever truly being limited. The point of the internet is to be able to get any information you want quickly and effectively. If they start shutting down our ability to surf, it would kill internet commerce, news and blogs. It would also prevent personal websites. So where is the good in doing it? Am i just so innocent that i can't believe this would actually happen?

adamgreeney: Am i just so innocent that i can't believe this would actually happen?

businesses want to use to it cram advertising they control down your throat, and to hell with anything else. blogs? who needs em? people sharing personal experiences with their products that might contradict the press releases? fark that.

People doing things that don't involve them being bombarded with advertising? lets put a stop to that.

etc.

Net neutrality is a good thing for people. not so good for big businesses that want to control the message.

Alacritous: adamgreeney: Am i just so innocent that i can't believe this would actually happen?

businesses want to use to it cram advertising they control down your throat, and to hell with anything else. blogs? who needs em? people sharing personal experiences with their products that might contradict the press releases? fark that.

People doing things that don't involve them being bombarded with advertising? lets put a stop to that.

etc.

Net neutrality is a good thing for people. not so good for big businesses that want to control the message.

But my question is, if they control the content and get rid of the things people use the internet for, who will use the internet and for what?

If I can't use if for research purposes, then why get on. If i can't blog or read other peoples blogs, why get on. If i can't search for porn, why get on. I think they would shoot themselves in the foot. The internet is what it is because of the immense amounts on of people contributing. Take that away and it becomes obsolete.

I RTFA. Nice work on the headline, subby. It TOTALLY has a double meaning.

Alacritous: Net neutrality is a good thing for people. not so good for big businesses that want to control the message.

I get nervous anytime the government wants to get involved with anything that affects or regulates speech.

adamgreeney: Take that away and it becomes obsolete.

They think it will become like TV where you turn it on and flip through the channels they control.

They haven't thought their cunning plan all the way through.

Big business hates the fact that they aren't dominant anymore.
Government hates the fact that they are losing a ton of tax revenue.
Advertisers hate the fact that users can turn off the ads. Love AdBlock!

Internet users love the fact that they have one truly free forum for expression.

Of course, the other shoe dropping will be that Obama will certainly back an internet sales tax...

Alacritous: adamgreeney: Am i just so innocent that i can't believe this would actually happen?

businesses want to use to it cram advertising they control down your throat, and to hell with anything else. blogs? who needs em? people sharing personal experiences with their products that might contradict the press releases? fark that.

People doing things that don't involve them being bombarded with advertising? lets put a stop to that.

etc.

Net neutrality is a good thing for people. not so good for big businesses that want to control the message.

This.

Nabb1: I get nervous anytime the government wants to get involved with anything that affects or regulates speech.

Considering it's the current situation, there's nothing to worry about.

Also it's always fun to see the people in favor of doing away with net nuetrality while the US has some of the slowest and most expensive broadband connections in the developed world. This is particularly fun after the ISP's promised ten years ago that everyone would by now have far better than what they ended up with. And they got huge subsidies to pull it off.

for the sake of not letting big business dictate content...

Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign is an aggressive user of online technologies, is seen likely to push for key changes in telecommunications policies that would expand Internet businesses if he's elected U.S. president. Obama, D-Ill., is a supporter of legislation that would guarantee "network neutrality," or nondiscrimination on the Internet. Network neutrality prevents Internet providers from interfering with Web content based on its source or ownership. Internet companies that advocate open online access, such as Google Inc. (GOOG), would be the winners under that scenario. Smaller companies like eBay Inc. (EBAY) and Amazon.com (AMZN) also would benefit. Traditional phone and cable companies balk at government mandates for Internet nondiscrimination, saying the industry can best handle network management problems on its own. Obama's presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., agrees with the phone and cable companies on network neutrality. McCain has repeatedly used the phrase "market-based" in describing his approach to Internet access and competition. He also has said regulators aren't equipped to anticipate fast-moving industry developments. Obama is passionate about providing Internet access to everyone. Technology analysts say he would be more aggressive than McCain using government to deploy broadband in hard-to-reach areas. Not surprisingly, top Google officials aligned themselves with the Obama camp early in the campaign before it was clear he would secure the Democratic nomination. Google Government Affairs Director Andrew McLaughlin endorsed Obama in November.Obama's inner circle on technology includes a sizable chunk of former president Bill Clinton's telecommunications team that presided over the Internet boom in the mid-1990s. Two former FCC chairmen appointed by Clinton, Reed Hundt and William Kennard, were among the first high-level administration officials to state their support for Obama.

i have mixed emotions, submitter. while i hate people linking to subscription sites, your headline worked well for what you linked

/fark it... +1

Sen. Obama is a supporter of legislation that would guarantee "network neutrality," which prevents Internet providers from interfering with Web content based on its source or ownership.

Once he's elected, i'm sure he'll find other things to occupy his time....

besides, this issue will be decided in the Senate, not the white house. And the telcos own the Senate.

As the VP of Government Affairs of the ISP company that I work for told me:

"Why do we need net neutrality? If a consumer thinks that (my company) is limiting their ability to go to a certain website, then they'll switch to (competitor) and go to the web site they want to. There's no benefit to the regulation of government, except to the government which will have to hire a bunch of regulators, administrators, etc to support the legislation. We do not currently limit the bandwith for people who surf other websites, and we do not have any on the books or off the books policy of doing so. So why should we have to focus on this issue, it's just going to cost more money that we could be using to invest in our infrastructure."

/works for the second most hated ISP in the world
//Take that AOL!!!!

Oh, and +1 for the conspiracy stuff.

Are we going for a WSJ trifecta-in-a-row or what?

C'mon mods, there must be an WSJ op-ed about Obama's wife actually being a man or an alien or something.

You can do eeet!

adamgreeney: I honestly can't imagine the internet ever truly being limited. The point of the internet is to be able to get any information you want quickly and effectively. If they start shutting down our ability to surf, it would kill internet commerce, news and blogs. It would also prevent personal websites. So where is the good in doing it? Am i just so innocent that i can't believe this would actually happen?

This post makes me wish i was still innocent and trusting

I underdstand after the election the Dems are gonna push new legislation that will make it much easier to form a Union.

Excellent.

This is one of those issues that really shouldn't be a partisan one.

McCain doesn't even know how to use a computer. Why should he be qualified to opine on something as sophisticated as net neutrality?

slobarnuts: This is one of those issues that really shouldn't be a partisan one.

For what it's worth, I agree. But neither party is really big on the whole 'lets trust our citizens' thing.

Edsel: McCain doesn't even know how to use a computer. Why should he be qualified to opine on something as sophisticated as net neutrality?

I'm sure those nice telcom people will send a hot chick/lobbyist over to explain it all to him.

Weaver95: besides, this issue will be decided in the Senate, not the white house. And the telcos own the Senate.

And if Obama is president, he'll have veto power. Also, could probably swing something with an executive order for the FCC. Like giving common carrier status to internet connections.

Weaver95: Edsel: McCain doesn't even know how to use a computer. Why should he be qualified to opine on something as sophisticated as net neutrality?

I'm sure those nice telcom people will send a hot chick/lobbyist over to explain it all to him.

You may want to ask Ted Stevens about how effective these hot blond lobbyists are at explaining "stuff"

slobarnuts: You may want to ask Ted Stevens about how effective these hot blond lobbyists are at explaining "stuff"

Not to mention McCain would forget it anyway.

Jolonco: As the VP of Government Affairs of the ISP company that I work for told me:

"Why do we need net neutrality? If a consumer thinks that (my company) is limiting their ability to go to a certain website, then they'll switch to (competitor) and go to the web site they want to. There's no benefit to the regulation of government, except to the government which will have to hire a bunch of regulators, administrators, etc to support the legislation. We do not currently limit the bandwith for people who surf other websites, and we do not have any on the books or off the books policy of doing so. So why should we have to focus on this issue, it's just going to cost more money that we could be using to invest in our infrastructure."

/works for the second most hated ISP in the world
//Take that AOL!!!!

If you're talking about Comcast, why don't you ask mister veep about Bittorrent?

This is something I would back Obama on. The internet is much like the oil companies. Many internet technologies are being stifled because the telecommunication companies want you to pay for your phone and long distance. Voice and video have been available over the net for 10 years or more. Why don't I have my Bladerunner/Aliens phone yet? I would be free that is why.

My dream is that Lessing somehow finds a place on Obama's cabinet to insure this very thing, along with fixing the FCC... he is his top advisor in this area and would be perfect for the federal CCO position that Obama keeps talking about.

/ hey, a man can dream

"Traditional phone and cable companies balk at ...

SUBCRIBE NOW FOR FULL ARTICLE AND TWO WEEKS FREE"

Find me a better definition of irony, please.

Linked by Megain: Internet companies that advocate open online access, such as Google Inc. (GOOG), would be the winners under that scenario. Smaller companies like eBay Inc. (EBAY) and Amazon.com (AMZN) also would benefit.

I understand that Google is the Goliath of the internet, but calling Amazon and eBay "smaller companies" is silly.

Jolonco: As the VP of Government Affairs of the ISP company that I work for told me:

"Why do we need net neutrality? If a consumer thinks that (my company) is limiting their ability to go to a certain website, then they'll switch to (competitor) and go to the web site they want to.

Oversimplified. Now imagine that there's two websites that I'd like to go to, and the competing ISPs in my area are limiting traffic to each one, respectively? Plus, of course, I have no control over the route my packets take upstream. I can't shop around for backbone providers, nor should I have to.

There's no benefit to the regulation of government, except to the government which will have to hire a bunch of regulators, administrators, etc to support the legislation.

I am sure the crane operators in New York feel very much the same way. What's the benefit of having a bunch of regulators running around inspecting cranes? Noone would ever run their crane operations in a way that risked their cranes collapsing, right?

Except that every single farking time an industry is left to self-regulate, the customers (or, in the case of cranes, the bystanders) get it in the shorts.

We do not currently limit the bandwith for people who surf other websites, and we do not have any on the books or off the books policy of doing so. So why should we have to focus on this issue, it's just going to cost more money that we could be using to invest in our infrastructure."

Maintaining the status quo is going to cost money? Shenanigans. Just do what you've been doing.

The Internet is to a certain extent doing to business what the railroads did in the early 1800s, and it took quite a bit of government involvement - stick and carrot both - to get the railroads to comply to business practices that could remotely be described as fair or even practical. How could it ever be the Government's business to interfere with the railroad gauges? But they did, to everybody's benefit.

When they outlaw the internet, everyone will be outlaws.

quizzical: I understand that Google is the Goliath of the internet, but calling Amazon and eBay "smaller companies" is silly.

google's market capital: 171B
amazon's market capital: 33B
ebay's market capital: 37B

they seem smaller to me

The_EliteOne: When they outlaw the internet, everyone will be outlaws.

When they outlaw the internet, i'm going to teach everyone I know how to hack wi-fi signals.

Erik_Emune: Jolonco: As the VP of Government Affairs of the ISP company that I work for told me:

"Why do we need net neutrality? If a consumer thinks that (my company) is limiting their ability to go to a certain website, then they'll switch to (competitor) and go to the web site they want to.

Oversimplified. Now imagine that there's two websites that I'd like to go to, and the competing ISPs in my area are limiting traffic to each one, respectively? Plus, of course, I have no control over the route my packets take upstream. I can't shop around for backbone providers, nor should I have to.

There's no benefit to the regulation of government, except to the government which will have to hire a bunch of regulators, administrators, etc to support the legislation.

I am sure the crane operators in New York feel very much the same way. What's the benefit of having a bunch of regulators running around inspecting cranes? Noone would ever run their crane operations in a way that risked their cranes collapsing, right?

Except that every single farking time an industry is left to self-regulate, the customers (or, in the case of cranes, the bystanders) get it in the shorts.

We do not currently limit the bandwith for people who surf other websites, and we do not have any on the books or off the books policy of doing so. So why should we have to focus on this issue, it's just going to cost more money that we could be using to invest in our infrastructure."

Maintaining the status quo is going to cost money? Shenanigans. Just do what you've been doing.

The Internet is to a certain extent doing to business what the railroads did in the early 1800s, and it took quite a bit of government involvement - stick and carrot both - to get the railroads to comply to business practices that could remotely be described as fair or even practical. How could it ever be the Government's business to interfere with the railroad gauges? But they did, to everybody's benefit.

Excellent post. +1. Would read again. :]

The_EliteOne: When they outlaw the internet, everyone will be outlaws.

No, I'm thinking that when the current internet is taken over by corporations (and it will, it's just a matter of time) the 'new' internet will be a local wireless-based mesh network, free from large-scale oversight because it doesn't require the massive backbone that the large companies supply.

/we're talking waaay in the future, though
//like 30 years

Sir Vanderhoot: No, I'm thinking that when the current internet is taken over by corporations (and it will, it's just a matter of time) the 'new' internet will be a local wireless-based mesh network, free from large-scale oversight because it doesn't require the massive backbone that the large companies supply.

/we're talking waaay in the future, though
//like 30 years

Damn, I'll be too busy being a hunter in London by that time.

It is amazing to me that those who so balk at any apparent socialism because it leads to tyranny will fight for their right to be ruled by an economic elite.

You see, companies don't exist in a vacuum with the customers. They exist in communication with other companies. If all companies benefit from limiting traffic, well. . . your traffic will be limited. Look at the farking telecom wiretapping thing. Free market thought would indicate that, if you didn't like your phone company letting the government spy on its customers without a warrant (which all sane human beings should hate, loyalty and protection of customers should be part of their farking job), you could switch to one that didn't offer their ass to the AG. But wait, all but one did, and if you don't live in an area covered by Qwest, guess what? It's either communication blackout or paying the bastards. How does the market fix that?

Have you free market types ever heard of Standard Oil? US Steel? Do you not understand that, once a company gets so big, or several companies join in a trust, consumers can't do a thing? Letting the market regulate itself is a recipe for folly. All the big ISPs would quickly get in bed with the MPAA and the RIAA and we know how reasonable THEY are about internet freedom. Enjoy the long loading times on Freenet.

Weaver95: Sen. Obama is a supporter of legislation that would guarantee "network neutrality," which prevents Internet providers from interfering with Web content based on its source or ownership.

Once he's elected, i'm sure he'll find other things to occupy his time....

besides, this issue will be decided in the Senate, not the white house. And the telcos own the Senate.

During his time in the senate he almost always voted this way so I would be more than a little suprised if he changed once he got to the white house.

I want a Tachikoma.

Subby:

You're doing it wrong.

+++ATH0

NO CARRIER

Dammit.

Suflig: I want a Tachikoma.

You'll only have 8 years with it before you have to fight demons with it.

A lot of good posts in this thread. Keep it up!

Subby fails Modems 101.

Jolonco
Why do we need net neutrality?

To protect against anti-competitive business practices by America's increasingly small number of increasingly huge internet service providers.

If a consumer thinks that (my company) is limiting their ability to go to a certain website, then they'll switch to (competitor) and go to the web site they want to.

All but requiring every major (and eventually minor) site to develop an alliance with at least one of the major cable/media or telecommunications companies. Leading to fragmentation of the internet.

Remember, what you're asking for is a removal of the requirement that ISPs provide customers with equal access to destinations all over the internet, irrespective of what that destination might be. It is GUARANTEED that loss of this regulation will lead to a situation whereby access to internet sites will be "tweaked" by ISPs.

And worse than the overt delays will be the covert ones. "Everything else loads quickly, but my videos from Website X are always so slow! I'll just use Website Y instead, everything is lightning-fast there!"

The infrastructure of the internet was developing absolutely wonderfully when it was being built and maintained by geeks. Mark my words, hand it over to the corporate VP MBAs and you will regret it.

There's no benefit to the regulation of government

That's what he says to himself as he changes his oil and dumps the remnants over the fence into your yard.

except to the government which will have to hire a bunch of regulators, administrators, etc to support the legislation.

So, regulations are just an end unto themselves, they just give jobs to government lackies. No effect in the real world.

Then you won't mind if I say let's just leave this one, right? Surely these companies won't spend millions of dollars to fight a regulation that has no effect anyway?

We do not currently limit the bandwith for people who surf other websites

Right, because you'd get the pants sued off of you for it.

and we do not have any on the books or off the books policy of doing so.

Exactly. Because we're currently under a regime of Network Neutrality. I'd like to keep it that way.

So why should we have to focus on this issue

Because there's a huge lobbying campaign to remove network neutrality right now.

it's just going to cost more money that we could be using to invest in our infrastructure.

In the long run, protecting network neutrality is about protecting the value of the network itself. The notion of equal access and peer relationships is central to the way the internet works today.

Imagine the chaos if we allowed phone carriers to do the same thing on the PSTN... notice how no one is suggesting that?

Nabb1: Alacritous: Net neutrality is a good thing for people. not so good for big businesses that want to control the message.

I get nervous anytime the government wants to get involved with anything that affects or regulates speech.

Wouldn't net neutrality be one of the ultimate forms of backing free speech? From what I gather it's meant to prevent a handful of superpowered dickweeds from hijacking the internet for their eternal commercial break and extorting extra money from people who want access to the "real internet." Unless you have the means and the plans to abuse the LACK of net neutrality it's nothing but good for you. Keeps a free forum/market free and all that.

Or am I horribly misinformed here?

/Evil overlord tip: Give all of your subjects free hi-speed internet access and you'll never face a revolt.

Well as long as his policies don't cut off my connection to Ultraf+++CARRIER LOST+++

Dictatorial_Flair: Wouldn't net neutrality be one of the ultimate forms of backing free speech?

exactly. that's what the fuss is about.. We have that now. The telco's want to change it.