It is obvious that the same folks who named it “Net Neutrality” also named the Employee Free Choice Act.

Where as Net Neutrality was moving toward possible nix, they get a reason to keep it alive… from thieves.

Digital music is now very cheap .99/song and it is available in mp3 format which can basically be played on most platforms without having to worry about DRM.

For those in the Bit Torrent market that use internet for bulk theft, I hope they get felony jail time…longer.

Net Neutrality (IE censorship of conservative blogs and radio on internet) is an Obamination. It must be killed.

We normally agree on issues, but on this one, we seem to disagree.

First, “net neutrality” is a complete and total fabrication. It’s an absolute NON-ISSUE. It drives me nuts that so-called “news” people even bother with it. Have you ever known anyone who was unable to access content (any content) online? I haven’t (except for AOL banning certain websites they deemed “inappropriate”, but that’s outside of this context…)

Up to this point, I have yet to read one credible story where someone’s usage was throttled and the ISP wasn’t forced to open the spigot to honor the T&Cs of the paid usage agreement. Anyone who can do simple math ought to understand the limitations of a pipeline to a neighborhood when presented with the laws of physics.

If someone wants to run a webserver with the throughput of a site like, say, Matt Drudge’s, let him at it. But he won’t do it on a $50/mo. cable plan with Time Warner because (as we all know) such connections aren’t built for it. I’m also willing to bet that your average BitTorrent user is something on the order of 100/1 or less of ISP customers.

As for copyright infringement, gimme a break. People have been copying and sharing music and videos since the first cassette recorder and VHS (or was it reel-to-reel?? I wasn’t alive then…).

It sounds to me like you actually want some kind of regulation of the internet. Be carefuld what you wish for. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Net neutrality is one of those stealth issues. No one knows about it, therefore no one thinks about it.

Whoaaa…we must not have the same understanding of NN. It is NOT about your SPEED at the ISP level. You are free to buy as fast as you want from your ISP.

It is NOT about VOLUME in how much in mb or Gb you consume. You can buy as MUCH as you want from your ISP.

What NN is about is PRIORITIZATION of Packets moving along the backbone.

ATT wants to be able to charge Google or Yahoo or Bing or YOU a different price to set whomever data at a HIGHER PRIORITY over everyone elses data. So the packets will be labeled and sent around or before someone elses packets. Has nothing to do with your perceived speed at your home.

Just another way to wring out a few more pennies from every packet.

Would you like for Ford to pay the highway people to allow Fords to always be in front of your Honda. Get clearance for every stop light while you wait, make every left turn while you wait…..

That is what NN is about. Prioritization of packet status. Not speed or volume. You can buy all of that anytime.

The youngins’ who have been made dumb, and lack any moral sense, which has been designed and achieved by the Progressives. I see this portion of the population as a majority of those that believe that government owes them everything, including music and video downloads. Like the young woman said, during the campaign, she won’t have to worry about paying her mortgage, or putting gas in her car. Another woman not long ago was in line for some of Obama’s “stash.” I guess now, they think music and movies are a “right.”

So, people who pay for their ISP $20-$50 a month, and pay for their service (World of Warcraft for example $15 a month) can’t use bittorrent to download their patches? All because someone might be using bittorrent to steal?

So, let’s get rid of self checkout at walmart, because people might use that to steal too.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because someone might do something bad, you don’t stop it for everyone.

People who say that we don’t need it, because we have always had it.. I wish that were true. It is true that you have always had net neutrality, which is why it’s a good thing, we have used it, we know it’s good. But, the reason we need to get in front of this, is the technology is changing.

What the ISPs are doing is scanning your internet traffic, spying on you (if you want to get dramatic, and apparently we do) figuring out who you are talking to and what you are doing. Then they decide the worthiness (based on algorithms, not some dude making decisions about you personally) of your traffic, and throttling your connection, or disallowing the connection entirely, if they don’t approve.

If you want to be able to connect to any site YOU choose, and not be punished (throttled) or disconnected, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

Whether or not you think it should be government enforced, is a whole separate issue, that tends to get blended on this forum.

Look at the title of the column, if you disagree, you are good for nothing freeloader. Makes for a great discussion when you demonize any descent. Don’t the Dems like to do that?

Ok, I don’t want freeloaders.

But to me, NN means ISPs can’t use their power to extract deals as to who they will allow customers to access. My first exposure to NN controversy was when the old Bellsouth said they wanted to charge Apple 10 cents a song downloaded or they would slow down access to iTunes. Today, without NN Microsoft could pay an ISP $100MM to use Bing exclusively and not let their customers access Google. The Bellsouth case is something that really did happen, the others, could happen and money talks. I like NN to keep from my ISP from dumping websites that don’t pay them.

Your reasoning that because peer-to-peer technologies can be used to do bad things, then its use should be penalized because it is anti-free market is completely backwards. From this reasoning should I gather than you believe that gun ownership should be severely rationed and controlled because it is so easy to kill a person with one illegally?

In fact, peer-to-peer technologies are used every day for perfectly legal *business-related* use. For instance, it is the most common way to distribute large software upgrades such as linux distributions. See, for instance, http://www2.mandriva.com/downloads/ for Mandriva linux paid subscriptions using bittorrent.

You are arguing that real, for-profit businesses should be damaged in order to blame a *technology* for the actions of its users. Just like Dems do with guns. How, well, *liberal* of you.

One more note in passing. Any argument that the ISPs represent “free market” agents is also silly. The communications market is heavily regulated and access is controlled. Most places have at most two options — their monopoly landline and their monopoly cable company. The argument that they should not be regulated in this because it is a free market is just silly.

If you want to play free-marketeer, don’t start with this. Start with the underlying problem lack of real free-market competition by the providers. When I have the choice of 20 ISP providers all competing in a free market, then I won’t need access regulations because the market will create it. When I live in a world with one landline and one cable company who manipulate the market through their interactions with local and state government, then I’m not interested in hearing lectures about how this constitutes free-market capitalism.

Regulate or don’t regulate, but don’t misuse “free market” propaganda simply to provide monopolies with greater control.

I’m a first time poster, and very glad to find this site.

I’ve been poking around over at the Daily Kos, and this is one of the subjects that has been brought up. I pointed out that the government has no business telling private companies how to route traffic through privately held networks. The impression I get from the pro-”net neutrality” people is that internet access is a shiny new Fundamental Human Right” like access to a doctor and a well-paying job.

Somehow, the internet now belongs to “all of us”, even though no one could name a nonprofit ISP, or a charity organization that builds and maintains computer networks.

My take is this: If people don’t like how private companies route traffic through their networks, too bad. They should get George Soros to build a brand new network that runs off liberal Happy Thoughts instead of money.

1,2,3

Okay, now that I have been registered long enough to comment . . .

Billollib and Bonkey have valid points. Most folks don’t have a plethora of choices when it comes to ISPs. I can choose Cox or AT&T where I live so there is a little competition, but Wild Blue is pricey for the speeds you get.

It comes down to whether or not you think it’s okay for the gov’t to tell privately owned companies how to use the infrastructures they spent millions to build if those companies plan to engage in discriminatory practices using those same infrastructures.

So, the recent issue with a major ISP being caught blocking file transfers of the Bible is not an example throttling?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003962392_webcomcastbible19.html

Does you phone company block you from calling religious organizations? Does your car company block you from driving to religious sites?

Step back a moment and think, how does the ISP know unless it is reading all of the internet traffic that passes over their pipes. Taking the next logical step, they could be reading emails, recording web sites visited, monitoring chat sessions, maybe looking into VOIP calls………

It is always nice to see an article blame the downloaders. To continue along that line, blame this on users that expect to get the service that they purchased. If a company offer a xy download speed, should you expect to get that speed?