yosh posted on 5/21/2010 10:01:00 AM
First, I agree that the President should not impose it without the support of Congress.

Second, I would be very suspicious of Google's exemption.

Third, I'll agree with you from a legal, technical perspective about my service contract. HOWEVER< I do think that you and I both know that my ability as an individual consumer to actually negotiate that contract is zero. Like most contracts between huge corporations and individual consumers, it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation. I can either accept the conditions that Comcast rams down my throat, I can accept the similar conditions that Verizon rams down my throat, or I can go without internet at home. While I may be able to get them to move on a price point, there is no room for negotiation for the terms of service delivery.

Beyond that, there is reams of evidence that Comcast is ALREADY shaping their traffic in terms of throttling bitorrent speeds (yes, bitorrent can be used for perfetly legal things). If I call them up, they'll tell me its not true. As an individual consumer who lacks deep pockets to hire attorneys, that's the end of the road. Like me, there are many people who feel that Comcast is already in violation of our non-negotiable service contact, but there is little we can do.

Nathan Benefield posted on 5/21/2010 9:12:00 AM
There are several reason to think regulating the Internet like a traditional utility will result in the same regulatory burdens in traditional utilities. Most notably, there is ample evidence that net neutrality will discourage investment by Internet Service providers (http://www.atr.org/index.php?content=ISPInvestment). Indeed, this is why even Gov. Rendell express concerns with net neutrality: http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/gov-rendell-expresses-concerns-with-net-neutrality

Curiously, the main backer of Net Neutrality, Google (also a major backer of the Obama campaign) wants an exemption in Net Neutrality for applications - that is, they want to impose Net Neutrality on ISPs, but not on Google. Wonder why that is?

As for "should Comcast be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with it?" They CAN'T. That is determined by what YOU and Comcast (or any other ISP) agree to in your service contract. Why should the federal government tell Comcast what they have to provide you?

Here is some more on the topic:
http://internetfreedomcoalition.org/?page_id=12
http://nointernettakeover.com/home/

Most importantly, Yosh, even if you think Net Neutrality is a positive, do you really think the president should impose it without the support of Congress and over a federal court ruling that they don't have the power to do so? Is unilateral authority in the executive branch something we should support? (Or is it just ok when Obama does it, but not when Bush did it, or vice versa?)

yosh posted on 5/21/2010 8:15:00 AM
Come on, Commonwealth Foundation, you're really slacking on this one. I haven't heard a good argument against net neutrality other than, "OMG THE FCC WILL HAVE MORE POWER."

From the Reason site you like to quote, net neutrality is:

* Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

As long as I'm paying for my bandwidth, why should Comcast be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with it?

Post Your Comment Here

Name *
E-mail *
Response *
Enter the characters as they appear in the box to the right *
	Want to make commenting easier?  Get a MyCommonwealthFoundation account here
	* = Required
	Please notify when other comments are posted in this thread