John Edwards: ‘We Need Net Neutrality’
April 11th, 2007 by tkarrJohn Edwards has joined the growing list of presidential candidates to voice their support for Net Neutrality. “We need Net Neutrality,” Edwards told Howard University students in a recent audience Q&A.
“Information vehicles like YouTube, the Internet at large, blogging, video blogging, all these things are ways for democracy to flourish. They’re ways for ordinary Americans to participate in the process,” he said.
|
“There’s a debate going in America right now about something called Net Neutrality, which goes to this very issue,” he said. “I am a strong believer in Net Neutrality. I believe it is enormously important.”
Edwards added:
“This goes to the heart and soul of democracy. Because, if Democracy is going to work in this country, then we want people to be well informed and we want a wide variety of diverse voices to be heard. And that’s what is at issue with these media conglomerates … We really have to stay on top of this because what we see flourishing at the grassroots can be stomped on if we’re not careful.”
Edwards joins other prominent candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson) and potential ones (Al Gore) among those who have come out for this basic principle of Internet freedom.
As the presidential campaigns kick into higher gear expect to hear Net Neutrality discussed more and more along the trail.
The Internet has become a cornerstone for any well-functioning democracy. It’s critical that candidates share their views on keeping it open for political ideas and grassroots participation.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:04 am
[…] “We need Net Neutrality,” Edwards told Howard University students in a recent audience Q&A.read more | digg […]
April 12th, 2007 at 9:53 am
[…] read more | digg story […]
April 12th, 2007 at 10:04 am
[…] “We Need Net Neutrality” Filed under: Uncategorized — recar @ 2:02 pm John Edwards: “We Need Net Neutrality” John Edwards has joined the growing list of presidential candidates to voice their support for Net […]
April 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
[…] is post isn’t about health care. It’s about net neutrality and John Edwards coming down on the right side of at least one […]
April 13th, 2007 at 3:06 am
[…] betrayed? Are you unconcerned about the entire affair due to unremitting assertions concerning the importance of Net Neutrality from Democratic presidential […]
April 13th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Is John Edwards talking about free speech or Net-Neutrality?…
John Edwards in a speech at Howard University was talking about Net-Neutrality. However, it seems to me he is confusing free speech and network neutrality.
Via Savetheinternet.com:
This goes to the heart and soul of democracy. Because, if Democracy …
April 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
personally i feel that this “net neutrility” spoken about on this site offers only a very short sighted and ill-advised view of what is happening on the internet, and is only serving to be another excuse for the classic american citizen’s anger at “the corporations”.
The idea that companies are eventually going to “take over” the internet if things continue to carry on as they are fails to take in to account that 90% of the time, if a person cannot find what they need on the internet, it is the user that is searching in the wrong way or with bad information, not companies attempting to muscle out their competition.
Also i feel it is very short sighted that this entire site only appears to deal with america. Living in the UK i have never even heard of any of the corporations that are supposedly “taking over”, and since the internet is the same regardless of where you access it from, i think that the idea of these companies restricting what you do and do not see has no basis in truth, and eventually boils down to user error.
To summarise for you all, basically if people spent a little more time trying to understand what it is they are doing, and if you were all actually aware that there is a world outside your own continent, then i think the problenms you say you experience may turn out to be a lot less prominent than youi make them out to be.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
[…] read more | digg story von Diggs | General | Trackback | RSS Feed […]
April 17th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Hoping someone here can help:
The success of Net Neutrality regulations in Japan, Korea, and France is often sited for its achievements in stimulating broadband investment and lower consumer prices - can anyone direct me to some scholarly research or other evidence of these cases?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
[…] John Edwards Supports Net Neutrality […]
April 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Perry953,
As we should. In case you haven’t noticed, yes our country has been hijacked by far right corporate interests. They have lots of control over the government, since they can give lots of money as campaign contributions and gifts to congressmen to get what they want as well as for propaganda. That’s why it’s the US government that’s unwilling or unable to do anything about global warming for example. The evidence and facts are all around us, I assure you us American citizens don’t need any excuses as you put it, to be upset about what’s happened to our country.
“The idea that companies are eventually going to “take over” the internet if things continue to carry on as they are fails to take in to account that 90% of the time, if a person cannot find what they need on the internet, it is the user that is searching in the wrong way or with bad information, not companies attempting to muscle out their competition.”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean, or if you understand what net neutrality is, but this doesn’t have to do with using a search engine. By the way, I don’t know if that 90% figure how any basis in fact, but I find I almost always find what I want with Google. Furthermore, net neutrality hasn’t in practice been abolished yet, the companies however want it to be. That’s what this is about. You can be sure a lot of abuses will start happening once they’re able to do whatever they want. Just so you know, this has nothing to do with some emotional or vague “anti-corporate” feeling. Net neutrality is a very specific technical issue regarding how the internet is run, and was put in place by the people who founded the Internet for a very good reason. Net neutrality is a principle that says internet providers must treat all internet traffic the same, regardless of the source or destination. If you pay for, say, a 5mbps connection then they must make an effort to bring all your traffic to you according to the terms of your service. They can’t slow things down because they don’t like the web site or it hasn’t paid up for example.
“Also i feel it is very short sighted that this entire site only appears to deal with america. Living in the UK i have never even heard of any of the corporations that are supposedly “taking over”, and since the internet is the same regardless of where you access it from, i think that the idea of these companies restricting what you do and do not see has no basis in truth, and eventually boils down to user error.”
Well, you’re partially right. Many other developed countries (including the ones with the fastest internet service like in Japan and S. Korea) already have net neutrality provisions. Unless UK providers start doing this, yes, it only applies to internet access in the US although it will affect other users too. Companies like Amazon.com are used around the world and if it’s forced to pay lots of money for some bogus reason it’ll pass the cost onto consumers. If my understanding is correct, it shoeuld have some affect for anyone who connects to a site based in the US. Basically you should understand the internet is highly decentralized and various private networks and bandwidth are controlled by different groups, governments, or countries. Right now a very few telecommunications companies (like AT&T and Verizon) control internet acess in the US. Different countries may have it set up differently. For example, some governments block access to what content its citizens can access like, say, web sites on Democracy. The internet isn’t one unified system the same everywhere, different country’s policies and who provides the internet to citizens do have an influence on how their consumers/citizens can use the internet. Now I’m not saying that we are in danger of becoming China, but let’s just say I don’t want Bush and his corporate backers to have any more control over what goes on with the internet than they have now.
Anyways, like I said this has to do with a very specific policy that a few companies want to enact, while all consumers groups oppose (not including fake astroturf groups of course). It doesn’t have to do with “user error” or some vague misunderstanding.
“personally i feel that this”
“i think that the idea of these companies restricting what you do and do not see has no basis in truth, and eventually boils down to user error.”
Exactly, if you don’t know you should find out. One of the biggest problems now is obviously people who think they know what’s true based on some feeling or idea or a commercial they saw, but don’t want to find out. The danger of the underqualified but overopinionated. I’m not saying you’re like that, but before you write that you have a feeling that we’re all deluded or liars, you should first do some research and find out what the whole issue’s about.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Drew asks for comment on research on Korea, France, and Japan. The question presupposes that a Big government, taxpayer-funded broadband policy is the right way to go.
No way. America has achieved unique Internet success in the world by promoting real facilities-based competition to eliminate monopolies permanently and allow consumers to enjoy more choice and innovation. Korea, France and Japan have chosen to protect their monopolies from competition so regulators would still be needed to “manage the market”.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm
As I explain in my commentary in the Washington Times entitled: “America’s unique Internet success” we have achieved more facilities based competition and encouraged more broadband investment than any other country. Our success in this area make America’s communications grid much more redundant and resilient to attack or terrorism than any other nation in the world.
Looking to emulate Big Government approaches to broadband would be a disaster in the U.S. It would also send us down the path of corporate welfare, as government and not consumers would choose which technologies and companies prevail.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:12 am
[…] “We need Net Neutrality,” Edwards told Howard University students in a recent audience Q&A.read more | digg story Digg […]
May 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Scott Cleland,
I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. Internet access in areas like S. Korea and Japan is far superior to the US. Don’t take my word for it, google it if you want. Even in Europe they often receive better service for a lower cost. These areas do have net neutrality, this itself makes the idea that the only way to improve the internet is by abolishing neutrality false. Some of these areas may have more government owned infrastructure, others like S. Korea I believe fostered competition by ensuring a large number of comanies providing service. It’s true America invented and developed it, but it was government policies that developed it. Companies that provided content like Google and other search engines are responsible for true internet innovation. The phone companies haven’t added done much, if anything but lobby politicians for favors and raise prices. In the past 7 years my broadband speed has barely increased, for example.
Where you go wrong is trying to convince us that the choices of the telecom CEOs = the wishes of the consumers, which is of course preposterous. Guess what! Where I live there are only two broadband providers, like in most of the country. So if they’re allowed to do whatever they want, that means less choice for their customers. The vast majority of consumers (real ones not astroturf “consumer” groups) overwhelmingly want net neutrality. The government letting a few monopolies do whatever they want is the very opposite of a situation where “consumers would choose which technologies and companies prevail.”
In reality it’s radical free market ideology (or perhaps theology) like that which has ensured America has stayed behind in this manner. A free market, with no regulations is great for most things, like commodities. It doesn’t work for utilities like power and telecom industries, or any situation with monopolies or duopolicies. If one or two companies provide a certain service, neither will have much incentive to innovate when they can make more money by figuring out how to get consumers to pay more. The internet which was referred to as the information superhighway is more like a public highway than a private cable TV service.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
At the end of the Washington Times article:
“Scott Cleland is chairman of NetCompetition.org, a forum of broadband companies, and is a former deputy U.S. coordinator for international communications policy.”
Netcompetition is a propaganda group paid by the telecoms. Everyone has the right to their opinion, of course it’s good to know when someone has an obvious vested interest.
Despite all the hype about the vague undefined “government regulation” bogeyman, threats to our freedom and the internet can come from both the government and corporate sector, especially in the case of large oligopolies with millions to spend on lobbying politicians. If the lobbyists and PR groups were really concerned about the government interefering with the internet, they’d be much more concerned about, say, the NSA scandal. Not that the government has any respect for the constitution anymore, but Verzion, AT&T, along with most other phone companies committed a serious crime and betrayed their customers. Don’t believe for a second when someone claims abolishing net neutrality is because they care for their customers, it isn’t.
The article was filled with red herrings and strawmen. For example, Scott Cleland points to the large number of Americans who have broadband, as “proof” that we aren’t falling behind. We aren’t falling behind mainly because no one has broadband (although it is true it’s not available in many rural parts of the country, and for the poor it’s not always affordable), but because the service we do get is an inferior product. There may be a few other choices coming (also in the article) like wi-fi and satellite internet. However, there’s no indication it will be anytime soon. Satellite has latency issues, it’s fine for one-way communication (such as TV) but it’s not even close to being competitive with DSL and cable. It’s extremely expensive, and while it’s a good option for people with no other choice, it’s not a solution to most consumers. Most areas of the country doesn’t have wi-fi. While that would work, what Mr. Cleland doesn’t tell you is that it’s his companies that have been lobbying to prevent people from setting it up! I guess everyone should be free from regulation, afterall that’s the free market, except when it benefits the telecom companies. And it doesn’t matter anyway, the internet still should have net neutrality, regardless of what technology provides it. In any case, as teletruth.org points out, the next generation of broadband was supposed to be high speed fiber optic technology, not satellite or wi-fi. Where I live, apparently AT&T is just about to roll it out in a few communities in a few months. The trouble is, they’ve been saying they’d start it in a couple months for about the last 4 years.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Thanks to Mark5 for revealing Scott Cleland’s ties to the Telecommunications Industry. It’s one more piece of evidence that the only people actively working against Net Neutrality are those who would benefit financially. The best argument for Net Neutrality is that it’s working, and there is no reason to think that removing it would serve the common good.
I couldn’t help notice that the form of Cleland’s Argument is “The American system is working really well. Therefore we should change it by removing Net Neutrality.” Hello?
August 4th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Eric…
Will you post on my comments too? Trying to make my site look popular lol :)…
August 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
[…] examine this impressive genre at http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/04/11/john-edwards-we-need-net-neutrality/ about […]
November 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am
[…] read more | digg story […]