Pro Net Neutrality: Op-Eds and Editorials
Page 5 of 6 pages « First < 3 4 5 6 >
Don’t restrict Web traffic
July 14, 2007 - link >>DAWN IYPE, Common Cause, Riverside Press-Enterprise
Somewhere, on a campaign trail not too far away, an aide is reminding his or her boss: “Anything you say can and will show up on YouTube.”
Voters do seem to seek out the YouTube videos that show our leaders in the worst possible light. A video of former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., struggling to stay awake at a farm-bill hearing attracted 120,000 viewers. That’s 100,000 more than all 42 clips from debates between Burns and his 2006 opponent, now-Sen. Jon Tester, combined. And of course, the posting of a video of former Sen. George Allen, R-Va., using a racial slur to address a volunteer for the campaign of his opponent, now-Sen. James Webb, was a turning point in the 2006 campaign.
Clock’s Ticking On Net Neutrality
June 10, 2007 - link >>Kevin Howley, Hartford Courant
The next time you use the Internet, type the phrase “net neutrality” into your favorite search engine. You might be surprised by all the information you’ll find on network neutrality - a topic that most Americans have never even heard of. And yet, for anyone who uses the Internet - for e-mail, online shopping, research or recreation - the principle of net neutrality is vital for keeping the Internet the open communication platform we have come to know.
Put simply, net neutrality protections ensure that network operators provide nondiscriminatory access to the network and online content. Think about it like this: When you make a phone call, the telephone company can’t keep you from talking to whomever you want, or prevent you from talking about whatever you like. Net neutrality applies the same operating principle to Internet communication.
Mike Lerley: Greed powers foes of ‘net neutrality’
May 16, 2007 - link >>Mike Lerley, BDN Staff, Bangor Daily News
It’s all about the money. How many times have we heard that? Unfortunately, in the case of the “net neutrality” debate, it’s this timeless concept that is driving opposition to LD 1675.
A common misconception is that “net neutrality” represents a fundamental change in the way we access the Internet; in fact, net neutrality has been in place for decades — until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission reversed the policy that required Internet service providers to treat all content providers equally. This week the Maine Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee will consider LD 1675, “An Act to Protect Network Neutrality.” LD 1675 does not impose regulations that are new to the Internet; in fact, it seeks merely to preserve the status quo — to compel service providers to continue to operate the way they have since the inception of the Internet.
Watch Those Data Pipelines
November 03, 2006 - link >>Los Angeles Times
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT was right last month to approve the merger of two powerhouse telephone companies, AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. Given the rapidly changing telecommunications landscape, the teaming up of so-called Baby Bells and long-distance carriers (don’t forget that AT&T is also the former behemoth SBC Communications Inc.) is not as alarming a prospect as it would have been a decade ago.
But that is not to say that the brave new world of a fiercely competitive market of cable, wireless and power companies delivering services over high-speed data pipelines has put to rest all concerns about the potential for abuse on the part of still-dominant former monopolists. In this time of transition, federal regulators should still take steps to protect consumers and competitors.
The Federal Communications Commission, in its own review of the merger, is considering a number of sensible conditions.
One would bar the merged company from giving preferential treatment to selected Internet sites and applications, or imposing unreasonable costs on cable companies’ phone services.
AT&T and BellSouth contend that these restrictions are solutions in search of a problem. The FCC should address the issues raised by the cable telephone issue promptly in a proceeding that will apply industrywide, not just to AT&T.
But the so-called net neutrality concern is valid. There’s a chokepoint on the emerging stream of competition: the companies that provide high-speed connections to the Internet. More than 99% of high-speed homes get their connection from the local phone company (DSL lines) or cable TV operator (cable modems). In many areas, there’s only one of those options. It may take years before wireless companies, electric utilities and satellite firms can field a competitive offer. Top executives from AT&T and BellSouth have been quoted as saying they expect popular websites such as Google and Yahoo to pay more “to use my pipes,” as AT&T Chief Executive Ed Whitacre told Business Week last year.
That’s why the FCC should approve the AT&T-BellSouth deal only with conditions that prohibit the merged company from imposing fees that discriminate unfairly against websites or services. These conditions should be lifted where new high-speed Internet services emerge to challenge the cable-telco duopoly. That day isn’t here yet, and the FCC shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
Don’t Nix Net Neutrality
October 23, 2006 - link >>Minnesota Daily News (University of MN)
Recent developments could mean the end of the World Wide Web as we know it.
What would you say if someone wanted to turn the information superhighway into a toll road? Last year, a Supreme Court ruling and Federal Communications Commission decision declared that the Internet does not fall under existing communication service laws, putting Internet regulation in legal limbo. Since then, cable and telephone companies have been discussing how to profit from this decision. One of their ideas is to create a “multitiered” Internet.
That sound you’re hearing is the death knell of equality, or net neutrality, on the Web. Net neutrality means that after paying for service, everyone can access the Internet as fast as their connection will allow, without artificial handicaps from the Internet provider. This “multitiered” approach that telecommunications companies are planning is really means that there will be a fast Internet capable of handling video and other high-bandwidth activities, and a slow Internet that can’t, and if you want access to the fast one, be ready to pay up.
Telecommunications companies would also be able to charge extra to visit certain Web sites based on how frequently they’re accessed and what kind of information they provide, setting up barriers to entry that never existed before. Those that can’t or won’t pay could see their accessibility limited. This would give a huge advantage to content providers with deep financial resources, and make it unlikely for upstart ones like Youtube.com to succeed.
Groups as diverse as Moveon.org to the Christian Coalition have spoken in support of net neutrality. They fear that these changes could give telecommunications companies power tantamount to censorship by limiting what the people are able to access.
This multitiered system would go against the egalitarian nature of the Internet, where anyone with a nominal amount of money and time can make their voice heard throughout the world. Its importance in our daily lives, especially as college students, cannot be underestimated.
Congress will consider the issue after the November elections. If legislation to protect net neutrality isn’t passed soon, we might find that free speech comes with a price tag.
Page 5 of 6 pages « First < 3 4 5 6 >
