How about a phone service analogy. If you need to call someone, then both parties better be paying their phone bill. If both parties are paying their phone bill, then they have a reasonable expectation of having access to the whole phone network.

Now someone might say that this argument is a little strained since your phone bill is metered, but you can make a legitimate argument that your phone bill would be lower if they scrapped their metering infrastructure and went to a subscription based model (a la Vonage). It’s easier to predict your profits with a subscription based model and you don’t have to keep track of every single phone call, etc.

But I digress. Both parties ARE paying to have access to the internet.

I’m not just using the internet as an information “consumer” – I also use it to make a living: I’m a software engineer and I work from home. Everyday I connect to my customer’s networks to make a living. I use Verizon, but my company may use a company like Sprint, or SBC, or any one of a thousand other companies. What’s going to happen there? Tere are 2000 people like me at my company alone. Businesses are counting on having fast access to the internet. Oh yea, this is why they want to pass this bill in the first place – they have a good portion of the business community by the balls and want to give them a little tug to let everyone know who’s boss.

The information producers (google, micro$oft, etc.) are also paying to have internet access and are paying a much higher rate than you or I are from home. They’re paying a fee that IS metered – generally by the GB (gigabyte). My website costs $30 a month to run. If I transfer more than my alloted amount of data a month I incur a penalty and have to pay for it.

Any mom and pop business run over the internet (and there are many) are going to be squeezed. Thanks for screwing the little guy you jerks!

One more thing – could this limit competition? I live in New Hampshire and my town for the longest time had an exclusive contract with Adelphia cable. Couldn’t get comcast if you wanted to. So Adelphia for the longest time was my internet provider. This is common for New Hampshire towns – can’t comment on the rest of the nation, but Adelphia could have easily decided to stop my Vonage telephone service from working and limited me to Adelphia’s own phone service if they had one.

“Do you order flowers online from your local florist? If he doesn’t pay up, you won’t be able to — you’ll be directed to a national online site that did.

Do you like to get your news from many sources with varying points of view? Soon you’ll be limited to only those sites the service providers want you to see — whether because of the political views of the providers’ executives, or because only conservative sites pay up.

Do you use the Web as a user interface for your critical systems? Perhaps your ordering system or help desk software or collections system is web-based? Your systems will be placed in the slow lane unless you pay up. “

I also heard it described as if you are shipping a package and both the sender and the reciever are charged.

SUPPORT FREEDOM OF ELECTRONIC SPEECH

I know there’s a crazy telecom rationale that net neutrality violates THEIR first ammendment rights but that’s just nuts and we shouldn’t cede them the territory. There argument is like saying that that “postal neutrality” violates the post office’s freedom of speech. It is the freedom of speech of the public (including the body politic) that must be protected.

-Lee

the hands off the internet web site is PAID FOR BY THE TELCOS. AT&T and BellSouth are sponsoring it. it is NOT an advocate of network neutrality.

their hackneyed and completely bogus argument is that insisting on net neutrality is a form of compelled speech, and violates the telecommunications industry’s first amendment rights!

get it straight!

There are several critical factors that I did not see mentioned on this thread:

1. The LEGAL designation of “phone” was altered once information became digitized. This happened in a 2004 Circuit Court decision referenced as “Brand X.” Suddenly, The Technology Formerly Knowns as Phone, which had been regulated Common Carrier phone line was now unregulated, up-for-grabs ‘information services.’

2. The REGULATORY designation of “phone” was altered by the FCC in 2005, meaning that there will be no oversight because The Technology Formerly Knowns as Phone is Now “Information Services.” Information services are not regulated, and have no oversight. Enter predatory pricing, from stage right…

3. Telecoms have been waiting for the 2006 Telecommunications Bill to be sure that not a whiff of NN language gets in. This is their moment.

4. The “Intenet” has several layers in it. Few on this thread understand this, and it appears that few in Congress comprehend this basic fact. This is technically very significant. Legislation for one layer (the wires) threatens to bollux up the most important layer (the software).

5. The ‘hardware’ layer of the Internet is controlled by telecoms. That’s what Cujo and Billmon and others reference. Those who build this layer have no interest in being regulated.

6. The “software” layer of the Internet is the layer that need the Net Neutrality provisions – this is the layer that writes the web browser apps, the email apps, the calendar apps, the eComm apps… this layer NEEDS Net Neutrality. ck addresses this topic in #197 at 9:05. I hope she elucidates before next Tuesday!! (And where is Rayne?!)

6. The telecoms were ready to lobby on the 2006 Telecomm Act; the software industry was late to this gig. (Too busy working, methinks…) So the telecoms, for reasons involving the dynamics listed by Bilmon at 239 (9:41 pm) are going after what they want — no regulation. IF this occurs, the software layer will be seriously screwed. The result would be diminished innovation and software development. The telecoms are killing the ‘nutrient rich’ software layer by killing NN. The software layer has made the Internet such a phenonomenal economic driver by developing websites, streaming audio and video, and other apps.

————
It’s not a Dem/Repub issue at all. That is a dangerous misconception. This is a TECHNICAL issue, with economic and social implications.

It is quite interesting that Harry Reid and Russ Feingold are paying attention and seem to “get it.” Too few others do; Cantwell and Murray (who represent Redmond, WA) are both playing coy. Send Reid and Feingold some love. Send love to Repub Senators who ‘get it’ … if I knew who they were, I’d post the names. Still trying to ferret out why some ‘get it’ while others don’t; may have a lot to do with staffing decisions and staff backgrounds. Few techies on the Hill, I suspect 8-p

A pipe without any interesting apps running through it is useless. The telecoms don’t appear to grasp the significance of the way in which their actions threaten the ability of the Internet to innovate, create, drive products and services.

NN 101 is at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/15/21545/0159

If you read that link, I think you’ll be able to advocate on behalf of NN with a reasonable amount of understanding. Late post, on the chance that anyone comes back for a re-read.

I expected Microsoft and Google to make more progress on this issue… b/c they didn’t, I’m turning into a veritable ‘expert’ on NN this week. Sheesh. It should never have gotten this out of hand.

Assumption #1:
There are two Internets in play. The first Internet, Internet2, is an Internet that touts itself as the Internet that officially represents all future creativity and innovation. It is comprised of universities, government agencies, and international corporate members. The other Internet, “commodity Internet”, is just another distribution medium. It is the one that represents economic growth and prosperity. Look up “commodity Internet” and notice who uses the term, “commodity Internet”.

Assumption #2:
It is believed that all Internets must use the present infrastructure for communications. Today, a global communications infrastructure could be created in weeks, if every house installed a cheap tin can antenna ($3 to $7) on their roof.

Once those two assumptions are accepted, the discussion of net neutrality can begin, as it is at that point, that everyone at the table has the same information needed to make final policy decisions about the issue.

http://www.progressiveu.org/12…..neutrality