NETCompetition.org

Pro Net Neutrality: Op-Eds and Editorials

Page 3 of 6 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

Public must fight to maintain net neutrality

April 17, 2008 - link >> Lawrence Lessig, Ben Scott, San Francisco Chronicle

The Internet is an engine of economic growth and innovation because of a simple principle: net neutrality, which assures innovators that their next great idea will be available to consumers, regardless of what the network owners think about it.

No previous mass media technology has been so remarkably open. Traditional media - newspapers, radio, TV - have gatekeepers standing between consumers and producers, with the power to control content. The Internet eliminates the gatekeeper.

Now, however, the Internet’s unprecedented openness is in jeopardy.

Beyond Net Neutrality

February 23, 2008 - link >> David Weinberger, Boston Globe

WHEN the Federal Communications Commission meets on Monday at Harvard University to investigate Comcast’s alleged blocking of particular types of Internet traffic, supporters of an open Internet will be out in force arguing for Net neutrality. Good. Net neutrality is vital. However, we must not let ourselves be distracted from the bigger issue: the struggle to preserve the open Net itself.
more stories like this

The idea behind Net neutrality is simple: Decisions about what information should move over the Internet most expeditiously should not be made by those who benefit financially from those decisions. The companies that provide the bulk of the nation’s Internet connectivity should not be allowed to decide that, for example, YouTube videos are less important than their own Hollywood blockbusters. They should not be allowed to skew the market in favor of large companies by charging for delivering their bits faster than those of a start-up. Net neutrality is basic to keeping the Internet the greatest seedbed of innovation in history.

Net neutrality’ good policy for everyone

February 14, 2008 - link >> The Sentinel

Back in 1933, Congress passed a Communications Act in response to the growth of radio, telegraph and telephone usage.

Today, telegraph is no longer considered a mass communications medium, television has taken over from radio as the predominant carrier of entertainment, and today’s usage of radios and telephones is far beyond anything legislators could have imagined at the time.

As we grapple with issues relating to today’s mass communications media, it’s interesting that the issues aren’t a lot different and yet we seem to be rearguing the same points our great-grandparents did back then.

Net Neutrality is Necessary for Free Exchange of Ideas

February 10, 2008 - link >> City on a Hill Press

The magic of the Internet is not lost on us. We are the YouTube generation, cursed with the capabilities of extreme multicrastination.

We surf, we Digg and we blog, all without realizing the ongoing fight for control of the web.

Currently, the Internet is “neutral,” which means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot prioritize one website over another. According to net neutrality, cityonahillpress.com has just as much right to deliver information to its viewers as the website of the New York Times or of Microsoft. The Internet portrays a true definition of free speech to an extent that our parents could only have dreamed of, but this is being threatened.

In 2005, AT&T suggested allowing some companies to pay for preferential treatment to prioritize access to their web content. After heavy protest, however, this notion fizzled.

Net Neutrality’s not anti-property, it’s about our property

February 03, 2008 - link >> Ken Fisher, Ars Technica

It took 17 rounds, but when the FCC’s $4.638 billion reserve was met late last week, it meant that the FCC’s mandated open access rules would necessarily come into play. Under the proposed rules, 22MHz of the spectrum to be auctioned would be subject to open-access regulations, meaning that the company winning the auction would not be able to control what kind of devices are attached to the network or how the bandwidth is used.

While there were plenty of high-fives around here, not everyone is pleased. Scott Cleland, founder of telecom analyst firm The Precursor Group, is out blasting the developments, saying that open access and “net neutrality” advocates are “antiproperty” according to the IDG News Service. Nothing could be further from the truth.