Sen. Kerry: I Need Your Feedback on Net Neutrality
April 21st, 2008 by tkarrIn a returning guest blog post, Sen. John Kerry asks for your ideas for America’s broadband future. Respond to the Senator by commenting in the thread below. Senator Kerry will circle back to address some of your comments and report on developments in Washington. - TK
By Sen. John Kerry
This may be the only place I don’t feel the need to play up the importance of tomorrow’s Commerce Committee hearing on Net Neutrality.
When I’ve talked to other people – and when I post on other blogs – about this hearing, I always try to grab people’s attention and tell them that, even with the primary tomorrow, we need to keep our eyes on the ball when it comes to Net Neutrality and the future of the Internet.
Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry
|
I know I don’t have to tell all of you at SavetheInternet.com about that.
I know you realize the importance of the government setting the rules so that some traffic is not discriminated against in relation to other traffic. I know you have followed some of the revelations of some activities of the telecom companies that have gone against their previous promises (Comcast’s actions related to BitTorrent got the most attention, but they are far from alone). I know you feel deeply – as I do – how vital this is to our future.
Because – bottom line – our economic and political future is tied up in a free and open Internet, available to all Americans. That involves making sure the content of the Internet flows freely, and it involves expanding broadband to the urban and rural areas that are underserved with our current infrastructure.
In Massachusetts, we have some of the most technologically advanced companies in the world, and we have broad swaths of Western Massachusetts that still have nothing but dial-up service. We have pockets of our largest cities without reliable broadband coverage. This is unacceptable and a danger to our nation’s future prosperity.
We need to set the rules of the road so that it doesn’t take overwhelming public pressure to get movement from corporations on network management issues. We need to give the investment and telecommunications industries clarity on what they can expect going forward.
I’ve seen compelling testimony that Net Neutrality, for example, would have a minimal effect on investment in infrastructure improvements and expansion. There is simply no reason for us to delay any longer in this.
I understand that clogged traffic due to high volume can be a problem – another reason to enact policies to expand infrastructure, by the way – but discriminating against content is not an acceptable network management practice.
You know, some of you may not agree with me on this, but I don’t even really blame the corporations on this. Congress and the federal government must lead the way and set the rules of the game.
And, like I said, I know that you realize the importance of all of this. When I came here last year before one of our hearings and asked for your input, I got some of the best feedback I’ve gotten on any issue.
So, I ask again: what would you like to see discussed in this hearing? And I’ll check back after the hearing to get your impressions on what transpired.
Thanks, John Kerry
April 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I think historical analogies might be the best way to understand why regulation is needed to keep what we understand to be the status quo. We have such a remarkable history of neutrality in our networks, and must continue to foster this blind freedom of communication.
- The early postal system was a large motivating factor in the creation of national roadways, created physical locations where people would meet and discuss issues of the day, and was a source of pride for early Americans.
- Libraries promote values of providing materials of all kinds to patrons, regardless of how the patron looks or what the content of the materials might be.
- The interstate system is open so that WalMart, Mom n’ Pop’s freight, and the public as a whole benefit from the system.
- Finally, in the early telephone monopoly, regulation drove network development and spread out the costs of doing so.
The questions to ask are: Why should the Internet be different? Why isn’t our Internet infrastructure something that we are proud of?
April 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Net Neutrality is hands-down the most important thing to discuss. Beyond that, I think the future of broadband internet is wireless. I think the FCC needs to set aside a portion of the radio spectrum for structured research into digital technologies, and another portion of the radio spectrum to the public, so that ANYONE can experiment with wireless signals without having to clear the FCC. The only restriction on the public spectrum should be on the FCC, lawmakers and large corporations from banning, inhibiting, or otherwise interfering with its use.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I don’t have a specific issue to suggest but I am a concerned citizen who wants to make sure that the internet stays free and uncontrolled by multi-national corporations whose interests are those of profit and restriction rather than those of freedom and innovation.
Please continue to defeat attempts by any corporations to control the most democratic medium we have in the 21st century.
Thank you Senator Kerry!
April 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
[…] Kerry is looking for feedback on the issue of Internet Neutrality. Here’s my comment: I think historical analogies might be […]
April 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I understand that those who want to take away all freedom of expression and communication want - really NEED - to take internet freedom away. It’s the reason any of us without millions of dollars still have a voice. What I don’t understand is why our progressive senators and representatives have not made it abundantly clear that this is a “hands off” issue for conservatives. This has to become a sacred cow - untouchable, undoable and anyone who tries to change the freedom of the internet should be forced to look like the tyrant he or she wants to be. Come on, folks, pull up your socks and take this to the untouchable level. Thanks, Senator Kerry, for giving us a forum - we voted for you and still have your bumper sticker on the back of the car!
April 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
This is a government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations. How else can the Bush cabal continue to push through such blatant propaganda without controlling traditional media? This administration exploits terrorism as a way to cover its regressive social and fiscal agenda and as a way to seize despotic power, and corporate-controlled media provides the tools. Democracy is only meaningful when based on the truth, and the corporate media can’t be trusted to bring us unbiased views of the world. Now they want to control Internet content.
Remember when Nixon lied? The papers didn’t hesitate to print out big headlines to that effect. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Bush and 7 top members of his staff made at least 935 false statements in the two years following 9/11 about just one topic: the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. By one count, the administration offered 23 different reasons for this war, changing rationales according to the polls or their delusions of the day. Have you ever seen the Washington Post or the NYTimes publish the headline “Bush Lied!”? But you’ll find it on Internet blogs everywhere.
This administration claimed Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. After surveying 600,000 Iraqi documents, it is clear that it didn’t, but we illegally invaded and occupied Iraq in an unjust war, an act of imperialistic aggression.
This administration called the “escalation” a “surge”, while simultaneously calling England’s withdrawal evidence of “success”.
This administration claimed that Iraqis would “throw flowers at our feet”. 2007 was the deadliest year for the U.S. army in Iraq since 2004, with 901 American troop fatalities.
This administration claimed that it is making America “safer”. An NIE report, representing a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, directly refutes that claim. It asserts that Islamic radicalism has metastasized and spread across the globe. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” according to one intelligence official.
This administration claimed Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t, but the US used WMDs indiscriminately, with Cluster Bombs, napalm-like Mark 77 fire bombs, Daisy Cutters, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, carpet bombing, and plutonium. A German journalist documented this proliferation in an Emmy award-winning report for ARD in Germany, but there has been a virtual blackout of coverage of these weapons in the major US media outlets. Depleted uranium, found by the UN to be “incompatible” with existing humanitarian and human rights laws, has a half-life that is as long as the earth is old. Much of Iraq’s soil is now contaminated, effectively to the end of time. The US killed 4,000 civilians in just one eight-week period of bombing in Afghanistan. Murder is, by definition, “to kill unlawfully”, perhaps explaining why those ultimately responsible don’t bother counting dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This administration accused the former Iraqi regime of torture. Amnesty International called Guantanamo “the gulag of our time” and labeled the US “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture and mistreatment of prisoners. Then there are rendition programs and Abu Ghraib, with accounts of abuse, torture, sodomy and homicide.
This list grows daily. The current administration is doing more damage to our civil liberties, our economy, our goodwill in the world community, our food safety, our educational system, our health care, our safety, our energy security, scientific integrity, our environment, our currency, our system of justice, the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, international treaties and our Republic as a whole than any terrorist could ever dream.
As Noam Chomsky suggests, “The Government is the shadow the Corporations cast over society. The essence of Corporate propaganda is to direct the peoples anger towards the shadow rather than towards the Substance”. Our corporations run this country, Bush and Cheney are the perfect enablers, and the media is the tool to push the lies. Now they want to control content on the Internet. If you value our democracy, what’s left of our Constitution, don’t let them do it.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
This is an issue about freedom. We take it for granted, for example, that as Americans we’re free to drive down any road or highway, to go where we want. We have that right — one that was denied to citizens of countries like the Soviet Union.
Imagine if the road construction contractor companies were given the power to determine which roads the public could drive down … creating smooth wide freeways leading to their cronies and affiliates, and bumpy gravel tracks for everyone else. That is exactly what the telecom monopolies are proposing as their alternative to net neutrality.
The internet is going to be the source of great intellectual and social creativity in the US for generations to come … if we allow it to be controlled by special interests we will be crippling our evolution as a society.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Thanks for interfacing with us once again, Senator Kerry. It’s nice to know that someone in Washington is listening!
I had a personal experience with a non neutral last mile over the past couple days. It relates to the articles here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/when_monetizing_isp_traffic_go.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/isps-error-page.html
Basically my own ISP was stealing a percentage of my website traffic, and subjecting my visitors who typed in error to an extremely insecure environment. I blogged about it from two different perspectives:
http://kickasswebdesign.com/wordpress/2008/04/my-isp-is-dns-error-adserving-on-my-unused-subdomains/
http://bitchslappin.net/various-idiots/earthlink-my-isp-violates-net-neutrality
This experience of mine has underlined for me something that I already knew– that we need better policy from Washington to protect the Internet from those who would subvert it for their own greedy reasons. Earthlink, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Charter, QWest and other ISPs do this stuff currently because they CAN. No one is currently stopping them.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Sen. Kerry,
As a resident of Western Mass, your point about build-out is well-taken and I think highlights a key issue in this debate: Economic incentives drive the behavior ISPs. They are, after all, for-profit companies. And while the “free market” is great at producing wealth and innovation, it’s not always very good at distributing them.
We have to get these companies on the record acknowledging that they have incentive to discriminate — because they do, and the threat is real, but they keep sidestepping. We need to hold their feet to the fire and make them say, “yes, under that scenario, it would be more profitable for us to block/degrade Vonage and Skype than to treat their traffic fairly, because we have a competing phone service.” As soon as they admit there are situations where it’s beneficial to their bottom line to play favorites, the urgency should be more clear.
On a separate note, why aren’t more Democrats making Net Neutrality a bigger priority? If this election cycle is proving anything, it’s the Democrats use the ‘Net to their advantage much better than the GOP; the Internet is the long-awaited counter to right wing talk radio, in large part because there are no gatekeepers. Can’t Democrats see the writing on the wall that if Net Neutrality goes by the wayside, it will eventually erode the Left’s advantage in cyberspace and cost them elections??
April 21st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I am a small business owner of an internet-based travel business. My wife and I rely exclusively on our websites for income. Because of network neutrality, we are able to compete for business with such giants as Microsoft’s Expedia, Travelocity and Orbitz and make a very good living. If network neutrality was removed, our entire livelihood would be destroyed. I can’t afford to pay any premiums just to put my business on the same level playing field as these internet titans, I would have no option but to fold my business.
My interest in this topic goes way beyond my own personal financial situation. We are facing an era of unprecedented media consolidation, where instead of unbiased news and alternate viewpoints, we are fed the corporate line with no way to know if the facts are true or not except for the saving grace of the internet. The internet is nearly all that we still have that separates us from monopoly-controlled media such as what communist countries offer, where the only viewpoint that is expressed is one approved or sponsored by the government. Stories such as Armstrong Williams and the recent Pentagon “Military Analysts” show how close we’re coming to that type of concept. Were it not for the internet and a dwindling number of newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times, our only access to what is really happening in the world might be taken away. Even now, the difference in theme and message between corporate-run American media and independent media in Europe and elsewhere is striking. To get unfiltered news, one must already rely on news sources outside the U.S., which would be made unavailable or less available by corporate takeover of the internet.
Imagine the consequences - what if Barack Obama’s website was not allowed to come up, or made to come up so slowly that nobody stuck around long enough to see it. What a difference this national diologue would be right now. What if independent news sources were stifled and only corporate-approved media was allowed to be propogated throughout our airwaves. We’ve seen the effects of media consolidation, as entities like NewsCorp gobble up independent outlets and convert them to the “party line”. This would be the last straw.
Senator Kerry, you are absolutely right on your point - it is not the corporations that are to blame. Seeking profit is what they owe to their shareholders. It is government’s responsibility to regulate and protect the public interest. In this, it has been woefully negligent since Ronald Reagan first began his assault on regulation in the 1980s. Without government to protect us, there is nothing standing in the way of a truly fascist state down the road - this is not the America we all believe in. I thank you for your continuing commitment to serving Americans, Senator Kerry, you are a great man. My wife and I are with you in this fight to Save the Internet.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I manage a small non-commercial publishing website. Everyone involved volunteers their time and donates towards expenses. Expenses under the current system very small. The writers submitting their work neither pay nor are payed. For us the most important issue is Net Neutrality.
The brilliance of the internet is that it provides everyone with an equal voice, an equal chance to be heard. To excel, to fail and to try again. To express alternate views in a world dominated by big commercial interests or repressive/regressive governments. To allow anyone to control this medium for purely commercial gain it, is to silence the voices we may most need to hear.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
While expansion of reliable and fast internet service is important, Net Neutrality is far and away the most important issue on the table right now. If we all had connections that would make the Japanese jealous it wouldn’t matter at all without an even field of play for every bit of information that flows through the tubes. The internet is an extremely and increasingly important means of communicating and exchanging information, and Net Neutrality is necessary to keep it that way. It must be treated now as an absolutely vital part of our democratic form of government because it facilitates a free exchange of information in a way that has never been accomplished before.
I’d like to close by sincerely thanking you, Senator Kerry, for asking people for opinions and advice in such a direct way and, I’d like to point out, a way that could only be accomplished using a free and open internet.
Thank you very much, sir.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Without using too many words, all I can say is that the Internet is the last medium where freedom is still truly possible, although that freedom is slipping away from us more every day.
I simply don’t want to lose my voice, and I don’t want anyone else to lose theirs. The Internet is still in its infancy. Let’s try not to lose it already.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Senator Kerry,
As demonstrated by ABC last Wednesday evening, their mismangement of the debate is yet another sign that
the concentration of media ownership serves to suppress
the free flow of thoughts, opinions and ideas. A concentration
of Internet access in the hands of a few corporations will not
serve the general public either.
Please help fight this battle as the freedom of the “third rail” is
quickly disappearing and with it, our democratic way of life.
Sincerely,
Jeff
April 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Too little information from too few independent sources is a mechanism used by dictatorships to keep societies closed and uninformed. Why should our Nation, which espouses freedom of thought, legalize such a mechanism–namely permitting large telecom corporations to selectively block users thus weakening net neutrality– that further diminishes it ?
April 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The principle of the first amendment is to guarantee protection for all ideas – from the most popular to the least popular. Charging media creators to distribute information to a mass audience will cripple independent voices and diversity in the marketplace of ideas. A “pay to play” system rewards financial viability with the ability to distribute ideas and will favor the hegemonic voices of financially profitable conglomerated media enterprises, while further encouraging their pursuit of capitalistic interests, as opposed to intellectual interests or interests of the public good. Knowledge is power; The Internet is one of the few places where a true marketplace of ideas still exists, and where anyone can go to receive an education about anything. The amazing revolution of user created content on the Internet is one of the greatest assets and hopes for the future that this country can take great pride in fostering. Central to this is the incentive for creators to reach a mass audience. The true capital of America lies in its potential to promote intellectual curiosity, free information and education for all. By refusing to enforce regulations that prevent corporate interests from limiting the nature and quality of content on the Internet, the FCC will be sacrificing the long term intellectual capital of our nation for the short-term financial interests of a few companies.
The mind is wider than the sky. The internet is like a collective mind. There is no question that we need to increase the infrastructure and bandwith capabilities of the internet. The question is who can afford to foot that bill.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
The issue is simple if the internet is properly considered to be a public utility. Abandoning net neutrality (already functionally accomplished by private providers acting secretly) would be like making access to electricity dependent on the makes of the appliances people intended to use. In the analogy, if you wanted to use electricity you would need to purchase only appliances approved by the electricity provider. Who knows, if we let corporations get away with imposing privileged access to the internet maybe the electricity companies will start using the electrical wiring to detect how we are using the electricity and demand that our appliances are equipped to digitally identify themselves before power is supplied to our houses. Permitting private entities to control access to public utilities above and beyond collecting the bills is a slippery slope that can drive our nation further down and less competitive in relation to other technologically advanced societies.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Topics
- Maintain NET NEUTRALITY
- Prevent corporations from “buying the Internet” via mergers, bandwidth spectrum purchases, mega accquisitions, etc. (We need to keep companies like Google, Verizon et al in check)
- Subsidize urban areas to ensure 100% coverage of FREE Wireless Internet access
- Invest heavily in research and creation of next generation technologies for data compression and data delivery
Thank you
April 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Net neutrality is, indeed, very important. While politicians and media anchors worldwide tend to distract “us the people” rather than informing us, for reasons and with intentions that are not always innocent, the internet is becoming, with all due reservations and caveats, a very valuable source of information.
Without the internet, how many of us would be aware of the contention that Sen. Kerry may have won the U.S. presidency heads-on in 2004 if not for voting fraud in a handful of hotly disputed states? Virtually nobody.
Without the internet, how many of us would know that the U.S. government was the senior partner behind the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks? Probably very few.
Conversely, with the internet, how long could governments and compliant media have maintained lies with enormous consequences such as the Gulf of Tonkin attack? In all likelihood, not long.
With PCs and the internet, at long last, official lies don’t live nearly as long.
Love,
April 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Please Senator Kerry, do NOT let the heavy weights stomp all over net neutrality- all the other forms and variants of media are tightly controlled by massive companies like Fox or NBC- the internet is a place where even the little man can have his own say.
Please please PLEASE stop them at any cost-
I believe that I speak for everyone when I thank you for your help.
Joseph Carpenter
Xios117@Gmail.com
April 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
When I plug in my toaster, the electric company doesn’t ask me which brand of toaster it is, or whether I’m toasting a bagel or a slice of bread, or whether I’m making a sandwich or I’m crumbing the bread for a stuffing. They don’t care. I’m just paying for the electricity. What I do with it is frankly none of their damn business.
The companies providing Internet service - whether it’s at the consumer level or the big backbone carriers - have no right to dictate the content of the data traffic.
Senator Kerry, thank you for blogging, and for your positive contributions in regard to this vital issue.
Our freedom of speech as Americans is in grave risk. Net Neutrality - treating all data equally - is as basic to our core values as the First Amendment to the Constitution.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Isn’t it interesting too, that when I’m in Europe, I can connect at 100 mbps for about $10.00 a month, while in the U.S., the best I can do is 8 mbps for $70.00 a month through Comcast - even in a major city? That is the effect of a few companies controlling a monopoly on our airwaves and our utilities - often the same few companies.
A similar effect, I think, as how GM has been supplying Brazil with biofuel cars for years, while not one has been sold in the U.S. by an American manufacturer that consistently opposes higher fuel economy standards…wouldn’t you say?
April 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Senator Kerry,
I have worked locally on the net neutrality issue and have made the case for this in the office of freshman congressman Steve Kagen representing the 8th District.
The breach of net neutrality is becoming more common right now aside from proposed changes in the internet end to end neutrality of the data stream.
One short example.
I subscribe to a small internet service provider. I do organization work for several groups. Some of those in the groups subscribe to Roadrunner cable.
At one point Roadrunner took it upon themselves to blackball this small ISP (blackballed was the word used by my customer service representative.) The blackballing took place for perceived violations
by Roadrunner at their service which they saw as malicious. This was their cue to prevent any communication from individuals
from my ISP to the RR service. Communication from RR to me was not blocked.
The blackballing has since ceased.
But what it shows is how the abuse that control over net neutrality can manifest itself outside of the general public attention.
I stand with those who want to see net neutrality maintained free of interference by various providers.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The internet is analogous to the rivers, and we the people the boatmen, the fishermen, the traders, the travellers, the farmers irrigating their fields. Maritime laws protect our rights in the one realm, and I see no difference concerning the use and govenrnance of our common internet realm. It is a part of our “Common Wealth”. No corporation owns a river. No corporation my levy a user fee on a river. No corporation my deny access to a river. A corporation might rent or sell us a boat or provide services one might find useful on a river, but our govenment is assigned by us, the people, to watch over our rivers so we may all share in their use. So no one builds dams which impede our progress, discharges contaminates which foul the water and render it toxic.
What we the people have a right to is that our common wealth is protected to assure our right to consitutionally guaranteed equality.
That certain corporations (commercially concentrated groups of individuals) should purport to have rights that supercede the rights of ANY individual in the United States, is an unacceptable inconcistency with the fundamental basis of our Democracy. That our government should take a forceful step, declaring through law the protected legal rights we share through the proposed net neutrality legislation, is the true purpose of government. Anything less is taxation without representation.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Net Neutrality is obviously needed. The free market is great however the telco companies do not work on a free market system so the system must be regulated.
Further a continued moratorium on taxation on the Internet will continue to allow it to grow. I know New York state is starting an ‘Amazon’ tax to start the assault on the continued tax free status.
Last but not least, the FCC needs to change their definition of broadband from 200Kbps - only 4 times faster than a modem - to something approaching a real definition such as 2Mbps. This small speed allows the telco’s to play statistical games and vastly inflating the number of Americans who have access to ‘broadband’. Even in the heart of our largest cities Americans can not even attempt to get the typical residential speeds enjoyed by other industrialized countries.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dear Senator,
Some questions to ponder.:
Why would an ISP spend money on a program to ‘manage’ their bandwidth, complain about paying subscribers using the bandwidth they PAID for, SECRETLY degrade a service subscribers PAID for (in the name of bandwidth managing) instead of spending money to upgrade, increase and generally improve said network?
Why, when caught, instead of owning up to it and saying they were wrong and it won’t happen again, they instead continue to put spin on their answers all the while still denying what has pretty much been proven.
The flat out arrogance of some companies to do what they want because they have near monopolies in a certain sector should be addressed. I realize they are in business to make money but some things should just not be done. It’s called ethics. Apparently a foreign concept to some.
Big business has it’s place, it just needs to stay there and not meddle in things that can drastically unravel the fabric of the American way of life.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thank you Senator Kerry for listening
Look there is nothing more American than Net Neutrality. I can’t think of 1 thing that will affect most or all Americans than the internet.
Our voice and our right to keep it free from corporations and “Big Internet” (aka Comcast) is as essential as the 1st ammendment. Maybe I’m being a bit dramatic, but consider how many people learn and how our technology has grown exponentially because of the internet. Now that technology is cultivated from ideas and creative minds that have the freedom (in fact it’s coming from the generation that grew it in the back yards of Berkely and Champaign-Urbana).
We need to protect our individual privacies.
We need to go after the companies that follow the practices of Comcast and all companies described here.
The internet breeds creativity and let’s face it — the internet represents our vehicle in the pursuit of happiness.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
First and foremost, we need the protection Net Neutrality provides so that we all have equal opportunity on the internet and no one gets preferential treatment. The internet belongs to all of us, not to any particular entity or individual. Many of the companies who are fighting the concept of Net Neutrality owe their success to the fact that the internet was an open and equal medium when they were starting up thanks to net neutrality. Yet now they’re using the clout gained as a result of that success to prevent regulations that would ensure that everyone else is allowed to have an equal opportunity to succeed like they did.
And why should everyone else be denied this same opportunity? Why should society be denied the potential innovations that the internet tends to produce when everyone has an equal footing? My ISP is Comcast because, if I want a high-speed broadband connection, Comcast is the only choice available in my area. The reason they have no competition is because they were able to get the FCC to drop its original requirement that the broadband lines Comcast installed become part of the public domain and shared with any ISP that wanted to use them. This destroyed numerous fledgling ISP upstarts who had been waiting in the wings for the lines to open up for common use, and doomed broadband customers to paying very high prices for low quality service due to there being no competition in the market. Why do these hugely successful corporations get such preferential treatment at the expense of other companies and society in general? The only ones who benefit from this are Comcast and possibly the elected officials who they paid off in order to be able to stifle competition. And now, Comcast’s blatant and deceptive blocking of peer-to-peer communications is exactly the problem millions of Americans have warned would occur without Net Neutrality protections.
The Internet is a vital engine for economic growth, civic participation and free speech. It has become the life blood of all different levels of people in this country. It is how we pay our bills, shop, run our businesses, communicate with friends and family, meet new people, keep up with politics, get our news and participate in discussing it, learn about anything and everything, get our college degrees, produce and expose fans to independent music, produce art, receive emergency information, watch and produce videos, etc., etc., etc. We simply can’t allow corporate gatekeepers to smother these democratic communications and stifle innovation by (i) instituting a tiered internet where the truly fast connections are only available to those who can pay higher prices, (ii) discriminating against new technologies, and (iii) by secretly interfering with Internet traffic.
Simply said, you cannot place something as vital as the internet has become in the hands of private entities whose priorities must, by necessity, be their own bottom line, without regulations to protect the rest of us. The people have had a taste of something empowering and we’re not giving it up without a fight. We feel just like our founding fathers must have felt once they had a taste of democracy.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Sen. Kerry says, “…and it involves expanding broadband to the urban and rural areas that are underserved with our current infrastructure.”
Sen. Kerry, I wish you could provide Internet access to rural areas without forcing taxpayers to fund corporate use of broadband.
“Expanding broadband” to rural areas means more money from blue states will be paid out to Republican-biased red states. I’d rather not pay for that, especially since most of the new infrastructure will be used by greedy corporate television interests like Fox Fake News. This doesn’t save the internet one bit; it just bleeds democratic voters and taxpayers for the benefit of the rich, again. Let’s let Republicans use their own money to reach their rural voters.
Newt
April 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I genuinely believe that the internet is the last place that the public’s voice can be heard in a nation that is becoming increasingly controlled by corporations. Knowledge is power, and without the alternative news sources and public forums available on the internet, all hope of putting power back in the hands of the people is lost. All other mass communication sources are overwhelmingly controlled by large profit-driven conglomerates (for example only 2 of the 30 TV channels on basic cable and 2 of a hundred of radio stations I receive are public broadcasting), and the internet is the only place left where we the people have the majority. Businesses follow the money wherever it may lead, and restricting the freedom of information is just another way to keep us ignorantly brand-loyal and unable to question the ethics of those who are profiting and in power. It is the government’s job to create the regulations necessary to keep corporations from trampling over our rights. Please, do not let this valuable piece of public property be sold to the highest bidder, because he surely does not have the public interest at heart.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Thank you Senator Kerry for standing up for the american people on this issue rather than the Corporate money making interest. I think the important question is who owns the internet. The big telecom companies don’t. All they are is a conduit and they are fortunate to be that as the internet is not something of their making but something they make a ton of money from. They should have no other control than to connect us and say have a good time. I like the Library analogy. It is not up to them to decide which books to stock but to stock as many as possible and let the people decide which ones they want to check out. They just want to gouge the consumer by being able to charge varying amounts for varying content. If they want to build their own way for people to surf that is fine but they shouldn’t restrict the ability for people to surf unhindered in any manner they wish.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Dear Senator Kerry -
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue (and I am an expert in the field).
The two MOST important things:
1) Telecommunication companies must be required by law to accurately represent the bandwidth a given consumer has access to. If the connection is said to have “3 Megabit”, this needs to be what it is, etc. If they are going to throttle it down if you are using too much, this needs to be made clear to the consumer.
2) The only type “traffic throttling” to reduce traffic loads is throttling down of the ENTIRE Internet connection for a given user.
Telecomunications companies must be expressly forbidden, by law, of selecting for themselves what content they allow and disallow. If they need to reduce bandwidth for a given user, they need to do it for the entire users connection or not at all, and the user needs to be adequately informed of what they are doing.
Make the above two things law and you solve all of the Network Neutrality problems and the problems / abuses will govern themselves using free market solutions.
Best Regards -
Kyle
April 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
California Democratic Party Position on Net Neutrality and Affordable High-Speed Internet
By Brad Parker
California Progress Report
On July 15th, 2007 the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party passed the following resolution in favor of Net Neutrality and affordable high speed Internet for America.
The adoption of this resolution was made possible by the unprecedented cooperation of both the Labor Caucus and the Progressive Caucus of the CDP. Working together over the months following the CDP convention in San Diego, representatives of both caucuses, led by Jim Gordon, chair of the Labor Caucus and Brad Parker, officer of the Progressive Caucus, were able to craft a resolution that addressed the concerns of both groups and Americans as a whole. Once again, after 100 years of organizing and political activism, Progressives and Union members have found common cause. Our hope is that this resolution will become a blueprint for legislation across the country that preserves Internet integrity with open, equal and impartial access and Net Neutrality. Further, that the build out of high speed Internet be undertaken as a public utility maintained by union members bringing affordable broadband Internet access to all Americans.
No issue of public governance is more critical at this time in our history than the immediate need for every level of government to pass and enforce legislation to embody the principles of this resolution. Therefore, we call upon every Democrat in America to send this resolution to every elected official across the nation and to insist that Net Neutrality and affordable high speed Internet become the law of the land.
Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality
WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish, Americans are entitled to and require, open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;
WHEREAS the United States — the country that invented the Internet — has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; the United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobits per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collection of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;
WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communication, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national, state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of networks capable of delivering 10 megabits per second downstream and 1 megabit per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabits per second downstream, 1 megabit per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses in the nation and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites or content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.
Submitted July 14th, 2007 by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party represented by Jim Gordon — Chair
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party represented by Brad Parker - Officer
Adopted July 15th, 2007 by the
Executive Board of the California Democratic Party meeting in Sacramento, California.
Brad Parker is the President of Valley Democrats United, and Vice President of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles. He is also an Officer at Large of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.
Source URL:
http://www.freepress.net/news/24981
April 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Senator Kerry,
THis is my take on the the need to save net neutrality, (though I like Bill Moyers’ term, “equal access,” better):
In terms of media, the internet is the only guaranteed means we have of free and open exchange of ideas on a mass scale. That kind of fast speed and wide reach are essential when we’re trying to stay on top of fast-breaking news that affects our lives. And those of us who want to take part in the rule of our country (one word, starts with “D”) find the internet’s champion communication abilities crucial.
Though the large telecoms kick and shout that they wouldn’t mess with net neutrality, it seems to me that they’ve bent over backwards to show us otherwise. When selling congress on their numerous requests for greater control in the last couple decades, every major claim they made about dramatic public benefits inherent in their plans dried up like dew when their wishes became law and the whole thing was exposed to the light of day. That’s not even to mention Comcast’s and others’ recent efforts at censorship.
For those who believe the stories the telecoms tell, I’ve got cheap home mortgages to sell them, with 20 pages of fine print and a low starting rate.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
[…] Senator Kerry needs your feedback on Net Neutrality Filed under: Action Alert — jr @ 6:24 pm Kerry Needs Your Feedback […]
April 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
A free internet needs to be preserved and protected. The same corporate powers would like nothing better than to become the official internet gatekeepers of the flow of information and access. The word Democracy means nothing to these people, only profit does. If we have any hope of preserving this Democracy all media needs to be free and accessible.
As you know there has been a tremendous attack on media since the Reagan years. Radio, television, and newspapers have been purchased by a handful of owners. The result is a bias manipulated one view fits all approach that threatens this society.
The only remaining free form for expression is the internet. If we loose that we might as well be Russia or China.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
A fair and equal playing ground is an absolute necessity for the internet to survive, let alone thrive. Rural area community schools and communities are, and have been, without the benefit of broadband. I would find it hard to believe that any senator in Washington has dial-up service at either home or office, yet, many of our rural school systems know nothing but the tedious torture that is dial-up.
Internet providers now have a habit of retarding the connections of its customers in the name of providing equal service to all. While I see the need for a company to provide some form of protection of connection, I question the vehicle, as limiting service was never part of the sales pitch when we signed that installation check.
The internet is only now coming out of its infancy stage. It sits in the ready for any individual who has the desire to enter the global marketplace from the comfort of home. So it stands to reason that the Small Business Administration could be used as a spearhead to cut through the monopolies and red tape to defend the entrepreneur.
Big business has cheated and moved overseas taking advantage of trade loopholes and sadly taking jobs with them. Americans are looking for any way possible to earn a living in these troublesome economic times, now we have to deal with the flood of cheap imports gorging the market with product made in overseas sweat-shops with child labor?
Now is the time to act Senator Kerry. Entrepreneurs, students, paying customers, this country and all Americans are waiting for someone to step up to the plate in Washington, cut through the crap, and do what needs to done.
Are you that man Mr. Kerry?
April 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
We need to protect an Open Internet to enable dissemination of information from multiple sources over the Internet. Unrestricted Internet access will stimulate demand and reduce supplier costs. At the same time we need consumer protections that ensure we are getting what is advertised and that all Americans have affordable access.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
WHEN REAL “FREE MARKETS” SHOW UP, WHY DO OPPONENTS OF NET NEUTRALITY TRY TO KILL THE COMPETITION WHEN THE REAL DEAL SHOWS UP AS THEY CONTINUE TO PREACH “FREE MARKETS” EVERYWHERE ELSE?
One could not design a more competitive market than the one that has emerged and exists today over the internet among content producers and consumers.
Its vibrant, dynamic, spontaneous nature is a direct result of the fragile state of net neutrality that exists today, carried over from the days of common carriage and old fashioned telephone service.
Why do those who preach a ‘free market, free trade” doctrine day in and day out in every other respect, suddenly reverse their position when the real deal shows up? Why are they afraid of real competition?
THREE POLITICAL “DUHS” AGAINST COMPETITION AND NET NEUTRALITY THAT KERRY CAN CHALLENGE
1) Why is the public message of “free markets” based on “open access” for everything else as the message against net neutrality is based on “closed access”, which is suddenly needed in order to “grow” and “invest” and “manage congestion” and “protect property rights” and “provide security”?
2) Real competition for content means they’ll have to make their money elsewhere, providing bandwidth as a uniform commodity, like electricity over a grid. So? Are the airlines in the “airline” business or the “passenger” business? Did the airlines threaten to withold growth and investment due to all the regulations from 9-11? Did the regulations restrict the basic TOS or regulate pricing and seating plans? Don’t passengers have neutral access to airline service?
3) When major network providers ignore a hearing as important as the one in Stanford, it means two things. One is they lose more from the negative attention then they gain with weary, bogus, “free market” arguments, and two is the notion to allow supporters of net neutrality to vent openly with gusto before the FCC and get it out of their system harmlessly, as others go quietly behind the scenes to do the real work of undermining net neutrality through the lobbyist network. So at one extreme, they try to buy up all the seats and at the other extreme, they boycott the proceeding. And these are the same parties who preach the virtues of “free markets and trade” to the masses who depend on their physical monopoly and duopoly networks? Who’s undermining competition here?
April 21st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Senator Kerry,
Thank you for your astute comments regarding Net Neutrality. I am an officer of HCoop Inc., a small but growing nonprofit 501(c)(12) tax-exempt Internet hosting cooperative. Some of our greatest challenges are dealing with the network discrimination from the big ISPs who make us jump through hoops to make sure our client’s email is delivered or selectively block certain types of traffic. These problems are more of a nuisance now but have increased over time. As a tiny emerging player in a massive market, we are in no position to negotiate special deals with individual network endpoints. We pay top dollar already for rackspace and bandwidth in a top-notch datacenter on a network with hundreds of peering agreements. If the big ISPs were to start demanding additional fees for special treatment to deliver our data the last mile to internet users, this would doom us and tens of thousands of other small players on the internet to second-class status and great a huge barrier to competition in innovated network services.
Thank you,
Nathan Kennedy
Secretary, HCoop Inc.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The Internet(s) should be viewed as common carriers, obliged to carry all content, giving all content equal weight. The carrier(s) should not be allowed to edit content, reject content, or give higher priority to any content. Likewise, everyone should have equal access to the common carriers.
It is likely that greater capacity will have to be installed. Reports that Comcast, among others, have failed to provide services in fulfillment of its contracts, should be prosecuted.
As more of our communications and the media migrate to web delivery, the ability of our representative government to function, that is for citizens to have informed and meaningful input into the way it operates, depends on all citizens having free access to all opinions expressed.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
A few months ago I was watching TV and a congressman was telling the host how evil the internet was, citing that anyone could post anything they wanted and millions of people could potentially read it. He then gave an example of how somebody had posted a “lie” about him on the internet and how he was unable to prevent that person from doing that… And that person could say anything they wanted, true or not, and have an audience. My first thought was that that sounded just like the politician, who gets his thoughts, words and opinions published in newspapers, broadcast on TV and radio and spread over the internet.
And I thought to myself, WOW… finally a medium that common people, just regular people like me can have a place to express ourselves, be it music, art, or political opinions, and have an audience outside of just our friends, family, neighbors and classmates. And we can get feedback. And it think it is just an amazingly wonderful thing.
Then I watched an internet short that really opened my eyes and made something in my head SCREAM… SUPERNEAL, YOU MUST SAVE THE INTERNET!!!! Now, everyone that knows me, knows that I don’t usually get all hot and bothered about stuff, rather I enjoy hearing all sides and try to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this really took my head and nearly spun it clean of. So please take a few minutes to watch this… it the best short documentary about Net Neutrality that I have ever seen!
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1395468120
Now, after realizing that this freedom to exchange information of all sorts could very well be in real danger… it upsets me. I don’t EVER want to be limited like I was before, only listening to the music that big companies can afford to distribute. I don’t want to be limited to the same crappy newspapers that we used to be spoon fed by the few companies who could afford to print them. I don’t want my voice to be lost… The Internet has been the single best thing in my generation and I don’t want it to be corrupted like The Press, Broadcast Radio, Broadcast TV… etc. Never before could I look up how to cook anything I want to cook and get a hundred different ways to cook it… before, I would have had to either ask Mom or buy a cook book. Same for learning about history, culture, religion… we were once limited to going to libraries, buying books or hoping or teachers and college professors were not so opinionated that it destoryed their objectivity. (Sadly, most of the time it did.) But now, I can find dozens of various viewpoints from all over the world, all within a few minutes. So, I like my internet. I know this sounds like conspiracy nutcase crap, but this is FOR REAL.
If NET NEUTRALITY becomes a thing of the past… all of this free speech will go down with it. Do you think we would ever hear about any of this if it were not for the internet? NOPE… Cause the people who would have control over what goes out over the net would be the ones that information would hurt, so, they would make sure it didn’t get out.
So please Senator Kerry, protect Net Neutrality… please!
Thank you.
Neal Allen Fischer
April 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
Here are some of the questions you might ask during your hearing:
1. Ask the telecom reps to account for the money we taxpayers gave them (in the form of tax rebates). We gave them the money to compensate them for the infrastructure investment required to provide us higher-speed, higher-bandwidth connections. We never got those connections, and now they want us to pay still more?
2. Ask them to explain why citizens in so many other countries have much faster connections at much lower prices than we have in the good old USA.
3. How will Congress protect the First Amendment rights of all citizens, not just the wealthy ones, in a tiered or pay-to-play internet traffic shaping scheme?
4. Ask them why the congestion control mechanisms built into the OSI model and routing protocols are no longer sufficient for traffic management?
5. Ask them why they refuse to light up the miles of dark fiber already in place all across America.
These questions should make their heads spin, if they try to answer them honestly.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
How many ways is Net Neutrality guarenteed by the 1st Amendment?
Freedom of speech is the obvious example. The internet is THE most effective means of communication in a digital age. If we are going to accept that one has a right to say what one will, then we must accept that one has a right to the means to say it.
But let’s explore a little further. The 1st Amendment also guarentees we, the people, the right to peacebly assemble. An assembly of persons is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a company of persons gathered for deliberation and legislation, worship, or entertainment.” Whether this assembly be geographic (assembly in a location) or digitally demographic (assembly via the internet), the purpose - and definition - remains the same.
How about petitioning the government for redress of grievances? If lobbyists are covered under the first amendment, I can’t imagine that individuals doing the same thing digitally are not.
Or how about not abridging our freedom of the press? Once again, Merriam-Webster provides us the definition of the press as “news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters.” With the advent of all digital news organizations and public blogging, access to the internet is access to the press - and freedom of publication through the internet is freedom of the press.
Consequently, it’s not just a matter of opinion - the Constitution guarentees us that Congress shall make NO law abridging these rights. Net Neutrality is nothing more than a recognition of that fact.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Hello I just wanted to leave my comment about the debate. I believe that some of the actions of comcast if not all in blocking certain internet traffic if not stopped will soon lead to the same thing thats happening in china(blocking sites like Youtube) just because the government or a company doesn’t like how something looks or is presented. I believe we should fight for our freedom of speech and another important freedom the ability to see both sides of a story not just what they want you to hear. If you don’t then you might aswell surrender and go to guantonamo bay or go to jail because it will be the same thing outside of prison/concentration camps as inside. Anyways thats just my thoughts thanks for your time.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Most of what I am concerned about has been addressed already in this thread. However, I’d like to condense some of the main concerns with the net neutrality issue.
The major ISP’s are trying to continue to expand their domain over areas that have traditionally been free to the people, and that should be protected. The ISP’s have no incentive to improve our access to broadband internet the way things are currently going. They are so invested in the technology that is already present and will remain content with this technology as long as the people are forced to pay whatever they are asked to pay for access to the internet. With a tierd system of the internet, this problem would be exacerbated to an absurd degree.
America will lag behind the rest of the world in broadband internet technology if the ISP’s continue to have their way, yet we will be paying more than the rest of the world to our ISP’s because they can charge what they want. Without net neutrality, this issue will be even more problematic.
Why don’t we have fiberoptic throughout the United States yet? Many other countries do. Why do we lag behind the world in the internet technology? Blame the ISP’s. They are fat and happy and are only trying to get fatter and happier by having the consumers pay for their fair access to what should be a free internet.
If Congress doesn’t listen to the outcry that is going on right now, the last bastion of free and open conversation will be destroyed, just like the newspaper, the radio, and television before it. Please save the internet.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
To start my comment, I’d like to throw out a little known tidbit that most won’t even recognize:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
That’s the 10th Amendment to the Constitution - The Constitution of the United States of America is not some living, breathing document; it’s a hard and fast list of individual rights and restrictions on stuff the government can’t do. It specifically says (paraphrased) “Anything that the federal government isn’t specifically given a right to do ***IN THIS DOCUMENT*** remain the right of the states or of the people, ***NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT***”!!!!!!!!
Since when does the government own airwaves and bandwidth? Who specifically gave them the right to do so? I don’t remember giving them that right. The FCC is unconstitutional, now you’re asking them to expand their bailiwick to include regulating the internet, just to make it fair?
If you don’t like the way a company does something, take it up with the company, people, unless you want the government to assume more and more of your individual rights! We didn’t have cable internet in my neighborhood when I moved in. I got all of the neighbors to call twice a week until they extended to our neighborhood. It took all of 6 weeks. Should we have gotten the government involved instead?
The ‘Nanny State’ is upon us.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
P.S. DynamicUno: I think skywriting is the most effective way to make my message heard; therefore, the First Amendment protects my right to have my own personal skywriter available 24/7, right? All paid for by tax dollars, of course.
Get a library card, they’re free.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
[…] the Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on net neutrality. Senator John Kerry wants your comments: We need to set the rules of the road so that it doesn’t take overwhelming public pressure to get […]
April 21st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Of course the internet should have no inhibition. A sole exception to this would be to place a tax of a penny or two on all messages from a single individual or corporation over 50 in one day. This would virtually eliminate spam and save hundreds of millions of dollars worth of time.
Sincerely, Charles Weber
April 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’m so tired of the power the corporations have over us, over our government, everything we buy, everything we do. If the telecom companies succeed in their mission, we’ll lose the last great venue of free speech and free access that we have. Please, preserve net neutrality and keep the internet available for everyone.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Senator, I’ve been involved in this area fore a long time, and was an expert witness working with your brother, on behalf of the CLECs serving ISPs, years before the term “network neutrality” was coined. I wrote about the threat to the Internet several years ago, and coined the term “Fat Wasteband, Broadband Internet’s Evil Twin” to refer to the plans that the Incumbent telcos had for the Internet.
Welcome to the Freak Show.
Let’s cut to the chase. It’s not possible to create a workable “neutrality” that anybody will be happy with by legislating or regulating the behavior of ISPs. It wasn’t designed that way. “Internet” is a dynamic, fluid concept. It got built under rules that treat it as “information service”, which kept it from common carrier regulation. Treating the Internet as a common carrier is like treating cancer with really, really big doses of aspirin. Even if it lowers the fever briefly, the patient will die.
The Internet has cancer, and it’s not what most people think it is.
The whole idea of Internet is that it rides *above* common carriage. You can get neutral bits, point to point or point to mulitpoint, from your phone company, and use it to reach an ISP of your choice. The ISP then decides what to offer. Is it a low-cost service with a cap on usage, or boundaries on high-bandwidth applications? Is it a “family-friendly” censored service? Is it a high-cost premium service that even supports high-quality video? Let the market decide!
But the Rethuglican FCC broke that. They took away common carriage in a 2005 ruling (Docket WC 02-33, also a Verizon forbearance petition). So now the phone companies don’t have to allow other ISPs on their wire. The fiber infrastructure itself, right down to the pole hangers, is treated as “information”. But it’s not. Neutral infrastructure should be available. By the same token, self-provisioned ISPs who pull their own infrastructure, be it a wireless ISP who climbs towers or, yes, a cable company (who never got “rate of return” protection or “universal service” funding), should not be regulated like a telco. The “level playing field” argument is bunk.
If we restore common carriage, and have many ISPs instead of a duopoly, then the big ISPs won’t get away with selling filtered, censored IMS-type services like Fat Wasteband as an alternative to real Internet. But the ISPs will figure out, in real time, what management policies people accept and what they won’t. And if a user doesn’t like their ISP’s policy, they will have a choice of more than two. That and ONLY that can create workable neutrality. Regulating ISPs per se, even if it’s a big one like Comcast, Verizon or ATT, literally can’t work.
Let’s undo the damage done by this FCC and restore common carriage, over fiber and copper, so that ISPs can use it.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
As I sit here in the ruins of Silicon Valley I ponder how we could have gone so far wrong…
I am left with a sinking feeling of despair for one of the remaining lights in the once bright constellation of technical innovation for which America used to be famous.
Bad employment law has created a situation where the highly skilled American developers and visionaries were shown the door in 2000-01 so that employers could get folks from offshore who would work in a state of constant crunch time and not complian nor ask for fair pay.
The internet was reduced from a plethora of ISP’s to 2 allegedly to provide those monopolistic entities with the cash flow to upgrade the network backbone and complete the golden mile.
That did not happen.
We need a return to fair competition and letting the same monopolies have the rights to block any apps messages that they do not like (or profit from) is not the way.
Not the way!
The beauty of tech is that anyone with a development environment could create an application that would run on a given platform. Many manufacturers act as gate keepers for their computing platforms, cellular companies, video game companies and manufacturers of quasi dedicated yet programmable systems.
They hire sub-standard engineers at sub-standard wages to work in poor conditions then put them under the control of a risk advers semi-technical manager.
This is not where you will find the “good stuff”.
The “good stuff” comes from a geek in a garage who may not have the degree but they have the magical “spark” that makes a great programmer.
By and large the classification of engineers as exempt-employees has destroyed our CS industry because management wants H1 and L1 employees who will suffer greatly if they quit because of demands for excessive free overtime.
A return to hourly pay would cause our industry to flourish and you would see American engineers being hired again.
Bad regulation stifles innovation…
Want to do the same for the Internet?
Just let the telecoms control the waves and within a few years it will look like the pathetic mess you see in the walled gardens of the cellular net.
Comcast and SBC should never have been given a monopoly but… they were and look at their behavior, censoring email from political sites, throttling applications like bittorrent, not fixing the golden mile, breech of privacy agreements for government domestic spying, not tending to massive bot nets on infected PC’s on their networks, random blacklisting of IP’s.
I could go on but you get the point.
If you want technical innovation you need to enable the social class of engineers with fair work rules and unfettered access to the development environments and platforms.
By doing this you will create an environment where once again Americans will want to be engineers and will have the freedom to innovate.
Otherwise we can all just go to work for PetSmart and watch Fox News to get our reason assaulted.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The internet is making the world more connected than ever before. Destroying net neutrality would hinder those connections, which would affect millions of lives in one way or another. Some business may not be able to operate with big phone and cable companies running the show. Valuable informational resources would be lost or limited and deny someone an answer to their various problems, big or small. Net Neutrality is essential to human progress.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Welcome Senator Kerry,
I’ am sure you are aware of the important reasons the internet needs to remain free. I would just like you to know that I support this issue and I am extremely happy that you are supporting this issue and I think it really commends your true character.
Thank you so very much,
Zac Coston
April 21st, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Senator Kerry,
What should you discuss? I suggest that one of the major topics should be the importance of protecting the governmental, educational, and non-profit Internet. The Net and the web are great equalizers for such mission-rich, often resource-poor entities that provide much value to citizens up and down the economic ladder, in this country and beyond. Please ensure that such organizations have access to the same level of access and data transfer as other, for-profit entities. Please require that providers provide such access. I have managed large web sites for three major international, national, and local organizations, two of them non-profit. My major concern in this discussion is that without Net Neutrality, these organizations will be left on the berm. Please keep the playing field level. Thank you for representing us in this important fight.
Regards,
Chris Noonan Sturm
April 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Thank you for your support on this issue. The internet is simply not theirs to control.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I would like to make the comparison of the importance of net neutrality to that of a free press. With the media outlets being controlled by fewer and fewer corporations with narrower views and agendas, I find myself looking to the internet to find varied opinions and verification, or repudiation, of stated facts. Anyone who cares to “do their homework” and be well informed would be at a distinct disadvantage if their only source of information was managed by the same entities who are dictating or repeating the daily talking points or just not conveying information due to a financial relationship with one of their media sponsors. I think that Alexis DeTocqueville’s observation from Democracy In America is just as relevant to the internet as it was to the press as it relates to the access to any and all information. “But that servitude cannot be complete if the press is free; the press is the chief democratic instrument of freedom.”
Thank you for your time, your service, and for giving this issue the attention it deserves.
Lane Simon
April 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Senator Kerry,
Thank you so much for taking a stand on this. I consider this to be one of the most important domestic issues facing our country. Please do all you can to ensure net neutrality. I have called/emailed/mailed my senators. Let’s diverge from our current downward course and save our freedoms!
April 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Thank you for asking for our opinions.
Short and sweet. Keep the internet OUT of the hands of the big corporations. I too have contacted my senators, which I suspect has done little good.
Net neutrality is an important issue. We have so few sources of information that are not controled by the current media managers it is sickening. I personally rely on the internet to seek out news and information from sources other than the amercian press. I find it to be a much less biases picture. Without net neutrality, would that option be available or would everything be filtered just like the news broadcasts and the printed articles.
Do all you can to keep the net neutral. Give us our one safe place for open dialogues.
Speaking from Ohio
April 21st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I would ask that you make it a point that we are the *First* contry with a successful internetworking telecommunications solution (ie the US govt founded the contracts that started the net) and we are now near the *Twentieth* nation in respect to broad band growth, with countries like China seeing more expansion then us.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
If the internet does not remain free, you can change the Pledge of Allegiance to this
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Corporations of America and to the profits for which they stand, two nations, divided, with plenty for the favored few and slavery for the rest of us.”
A free people need education and information in order to act intelligently.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Thank you doing this senator, you were robbed in ‘04.
If Comcast can separate content into slow and fast lanes based on fees, and the dimensions of these lanes are at their discretion, it follows that they will be able to block content unless I’ve missed something. But even if they had to provide some service, if information transfers slowly enough, don’t browsers time-out the request?
If content can be blocked or de-facto-blocked, how long will this website be available to me? Savetheinternet is probably not going to pay Comcast’s fee. Will this debate be possible a few years from now?
I think the biggest tragedy is that whatever happens, we the people are going to get used to it. People can get used to anything. Just look at radio stations who get payola from record companies and sub-par news on channels leased from the people. If Comcast is allowed to do this, we’ll have a small window of time to change it before the CNN news-cycle moves on and people start getting used to the changes. When that happens, change will become almost impossible. Change requires outrage, and there’s a reason you’ll never see this debate on television.
The internet is more than hardware, it has philosophical implications on society. For the first time, we can directly influence and change events on the other side of the world and communicate with the rest of the world instantly. This doesn’t just “give us a voice,” as is so often mentioned, it makes us responsible. If we can see a map of burned villages in Darfur on Google Maps in real time, we have to care. Knowledge is more than power, it is a form of responsibility that contributes to our moral development.
How we think of the internet is as important as what it is. We use the internet as a socializing, democratizing force largely because we believe that is what it is. We use television to sell things and deaden our minds because that is what we envision it to be. One of the earliest myths about TV was that watching it made you stupid. Consequently, watching TV today probably does make you stupid. I don’t think that is a coincidence. Early uses of the internet included sharing scientific data and organizing vast amounts of information. The internet is what we decide it to be. If we decide that the internet will be organized by market-principles, (ex. Radio payola) it will reflect those principles. The cable companies want you to be able to use the internet to make your computer a second TV. If they are allowed to redefine what the internet is, I believe the internet itself will eventually become a second TV, in principle as well as practice.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Senator Kerry,
I appreciate being able to address you directly on this issue. I am a libertarian, and generally opposed to unnecessary regulation of business. Net neutrality legislation is most decidedly necessary, and justifiable given the nature of the national telecommunications industry, which I feel is a quasi-governmental institution given its extensive municipal and federal monopoly protections that limit competition to the Bells vs. the regional cable operators. While in a normal competitive market I would feel that legislation to enforce network neutrality principles would be heavy-handed, even I see the need for them in this case, where a duopoly has been enshrined not by federal statute alone, but thousands of local ones across the nation as well.
Network neutrality must be enforced or the duopoly internet backbone providers will bleed the internet dry of every penny of profit. Not only from content producers, as they intend to do today, but retailers and other creative interests (especially the businesses of online gaming and pornography) as well. When we let the providers choose to deliver content based not on the size of the content and quality of the connection, but on the content itself, they cease to even resemble a common carrier of any kind. They will suck the life out of the internet and destroy it as a vehicle for business everywhere as a result of their deep, systemic greed.
I rarely say this to my government, Senator Kerry, and the very words give me pause, but I say them to you with all the conviction in my heart:
Protect us from these companies.
Sincerely,
Larry Fine
Stockbridge, GA
April 21st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Tinkering with protecting the internet is no longer enough. Giving it to the FCC in it’s current form is foolhardy. We have to take back the FCC from the corporations. Yes, the FCC IS better than the media corporations however it is far from enough because now the FCC will be regulating our content on the Internet - like they did over TV and radio. What we need is a something NEW. This is it!
You Inc. -The Advocacy Corporation is THE WAY to ensure that we have and active an informed citizenry and it is now time to deal with the very issue you raised and make THAT the MOST important issue we will EVER face as a democracy. We make THAT the issue this year and we shine the biggest light we can on the corruption that is our media by REMOVING them from the role of “informing” the people (they are unfit do do so as they are owned by corporations who MUST legally make a profit). We are replacing them with a whole new medium. YOU.
Protect information and the people who share information, Advocates, and give everyone with a point of view free TV time and everything changes overnight. That is what we are doing and it will have more impact than ANY presidential candidate could (except maybe Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich - and any other candidates of integrity - if YOU are one with integrity we will see you get behind this cause). We are not Democrats, we are not Republicans - we are citizens.
Join the next evolution of our Democracy - the time for apathy is over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8eNn_8RJXE
http://www.youtube.com/user/AdvocacyCorporation
April 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Net Neutrality is important for democracy, creativity, small business, and promotion of something we keep losing and need to keep or regain - a sense of public-spiritedness in which not everything is up for sale.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It’s clear that the internet needs to be available to all members of our society and community and that large commercial corporations should not control it for their economic and political gain. That would simply not be democratic.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Here are some things I want to have discussed:
I would like to know why telcos, network operators and cable companies claim they have the right to control how we use the internet when nobody can own the internet itself.
I would like to know what gives ISPs the authority to censor, control or manipulate the information over the internet when we have a First Amendment right that places the burden upon the State to demonstrate when (and if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary, and this is not a matter for corporate entities to decide simply in order to protect their financial interests.
I want to know why ISPs, telco and cable service providers are claiming that internet traffic is causing congestion, when the users of the internet have no way to build infrastructure, expand service, increase speed and capacity, or profit from these business activities. This seems a little like blaming the customer for for using the service marketed and sold to them.
I want to know why the telcos, cable companies and service providers have been slow and unwilling to increase network speed and capacity when Japan, Korea, Scandinavia, and many other countries have no problem delivering average broadband service several times faster than in the US.
I want to know if the lack of infrastructure development by telco, cable and ISPs is a result of profit motives, and I want to know how this limited access is stifling our ability to develop as a nation, creatively, intellectually, economically and socially.
I want to know why large ISPs are allowed to have terms of service that essentially say “whatever we give you is what you bought”, and the consumer rarely has any other remedy.
I want to know how my email, communications, and internet activity is being tracked and used, and I want to know why.
I want to know how a small business would fair against a large business closely aligned with telco, cable or ISP interests that could control access, data, or other activities at will.
I want to know why it isn’t apparent that our Constitution and system of representational democracy is in danger of being manipulated by private enterprise via the ability to control access to information, ideas, thoughts, images, music and speech inherent in the interaction between its citizens, including those elected to govern them.
I want to know why we should not consider a free and open internet as a right.
I want to know why we’re even having this discussion when it is obvious that the telcos, cable companies and large ISPs have undue influence with Congress and the FCC, and are buying favor in Washington in an attempt to convince us to accept policies and practices that would harm its citizens and limit competition.
I want to know why FCC Chairman Martin apparently has taken the view that his agency is there to serve the needs of the telcos, cable companies and network operators over the needs of the public.
I want to know how long before web sites, blogs and email like this are blocked because they represent a potential threat to business interests.
I want to know how long before web sites, blogs and email like this are blocked because they represent a potential threat to political interests.
I want to know why the United States of America is considered to have the best government money can buy.
Keep fighting the good fight Senator Kerry!
April 21st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Thank you Senator Kerry for standing up and speaking out for Net Neutrality. It is essential that this country is not allowed to block more freedoms and information from reaching it’s citizens.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I applaud what you are standing for Senator Kerry. This discussion is part of a greater stand for our freedoms and rights. Please continue to keep the free world free!
Thank you.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Thank you for championing this important matter. As a small business owner, net neutrality is essential to my livelihood. It’s wonderful to have such a resource at my fingertips. Especially, in light of yesterday’s news story in the NYTimes about the pro-war propoganda machine at the Pentagon, we need all the sources we can find for real news. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
April 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
We need strong Net Neutrality laws to protect the freedom and openness of the Internet so the big cable and telecom giants wanting a controlled, and closed Internet cannot discriminate against Internet users based on what types of websites they visit. Imagine on your next bill your ISP tells you since you have been downloading from iTunes Store you have to pay extra than someone who doesn’t use iTunes or XBox Live? “The people who are paying for legitimate products deserve the right to play on and endorse the online gaming provider of their choice. It’s the basic principle of business in our society: choice.”
Net Neutrality prevents large phone and cable companies from controlling our right to connect with one another and play the games we choose.
Without it, ISP’s can block you from accessing your favorite Web sites and charge you more to play games like World of Warcraft® or Xbox Live®.
Net Neutrality is the law of the Internet — in other industries Big Media companies have established exclusive control over our nation’s airwaves. Buying up local radio outfits there are few independent voices on the radio left. In television it is worse — Big Media giants with their own TV channels like The Walt Disney Company with its Disney Channel decide what is aired and what isn’t. There are few if any independent voices in television news. Sure there is public broadcasting but that has been under threat of being underfunded.
If Net Neutrality is removed cable giants like Comcast which has its own digital cable television service (which is offering its own pay per view programming and beginning to launch video on demand based systems) and is an ISP can discriminate against its customers of Internet access opting to buy movies, TV shows and more through Apple’s iTunes Store and other non Comcast platforms for download.
I would also like to SPEAK OF THE wireless phone market. Wireless companies enjoy a market nearly free of true competition in many parts of the country. Mergers and acquisitions — along with anti-competitive practices like locked handsets and early termination fees — keep you from voting with your feet.
Cell phones can work a lot better for less money and Congress can help.
Three simple reforms–phones that you can take with you when you switch plans, early termination fees pro-rated for your time on the contract, and improved innovation processes–will finally make cell phone companies compete for your business based on price and service.
We need to preserve Net Neutrality on the open Internet — without it free speech online will be under threat. Bloggers, and independent online journalists could be silenced from using the Internet to communicate, spread ideas, and share quality news.
We have to stop the mega mergers and acquisitions, stop the anti-competitive practices by the big phone companies like locked handsets, and termination fees for ending a contract early and fight for better Internet connectivity on mobile devices as well.
Thank you Senator Kerry for standing firm on this issue (and by the way I voted for you in 2004 for President) I am also tired of Big Money, special interests and the corruption that comes with it. Please continue to stand firm Senator Kerry and thank you!
April 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Senator, I’m glad you are taking the time to solicit public opinion in this manner. Thank you in advance.
We carry out so many aspects of our lives on the Internet without even thinking about it: we read the news, exchange photos with friends and family, write to senators, get driving directions, look up old friends and shop for goods. We are an information society and our culture is mediated by the Internet and the technology behind it. For decades, the Internet has operated under basic principles of network neutrality: information and ideas in this space flow freely, just like goods in a free marketplace. Such an open forum allows us to innovate in incredible, unpredictable ways: open source software has flourished, social media has redefined the role of the “viewer,” and new forms of social organization have emerged. In this special forum, the powder keg of human potential has exploded, blowing up traditional business models, old media, and even hegemonic power structures. In their places, we are building new institutions like MoveOn, YouTube, Bittorrent, Digg and Linux. The open culture revolution is in its infancy, but has already demonstrated its potential.
Out of the smashed British monarchy and Enlightenment-era thinking, our founders created a democratic nation that celebrates freedom of speech and empowers citizens to govern themselves. Likewise, growing from the withering power structures of a passing age, a free and open Internet celebrates innovation and competition, and empowers people to create and share their own ideas with the world.
Telecommunications companies have a vested interest in maintaining their power and increasing profits, but would do so at the cost of introducing boundaries to the Internet that will restrict the free flow of the information marketplace. If we are a democracy, and a culture mediated by our technology, then it is a national priority akin to upholding the first amendment of our constitution that we protect the Internet as an open forum. We can choose to trade those freedoms for profit, but if we do, we will be monarchists in the open culture revolution.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
My life depends on the internet being neutral. Our country depends on it too. With out net neutrality our country is not truly free. It just feels like another oppressive move by the government to me. I agree, it’s not the companies fault but congress. I keep learning new things about other countries that sound a lot more “free” than our own country. Isn’t that supposed to represent America? If that is so then why do I always feel like we’re fighting for our rights and our freedom? This just feels like one more thing demonstrating the fascist direction our country seems to be slipping. Thank you Senator Kerry, I know as well as the rest of the world, you should have been President and would have done a fantastic job. Looks like you can still protect us and our rights from the Senate chair as well, and thank god.