Is Net Neutrality the Way?

The problem is that giving government control of the Net, which is what is being proposed here, will not bring about that result.

You're asserting that Net Neutrality will "give the government control of the Net," yes? Where do you get this impression? All the freedom-loving activists that I'm aware of, groups like the Electronic Freedom Foundation, which has been around a lot longer than the debate about Net Neutrality, are fully behind it.

Once again the most important point it lost.

For almost all "wired Internet" connections the Internet is a "utility". People do not have choices, there is no reasonable competition and whatever company has the contract in the city has a monopoly over the service. In these cases what is being called "net neutrality" must be in place otherwise they can hold the homeowners (lets also consider them citizens with rights) hostage by only allowing Internet traffic that lines their pockets with money. People with no choices must have full rights to use the internet without the marketing goals of investors interfering. Yes, the people in the US must pay to use the Internet, but the access or bandwidth & access plans must allow content that is independent of corporate profit goals.

For the other types of services can be more of a gray zone. For RF distribution of Internet services to homes or businesses there MIGHT be competition in some service areas, but I think that most reasonable people would agree that the service really is a utility and once you pay for access you should have no interference from the corporation. They should not be able to damage your quality of service for one application in order to force you to use the applications that they choose (and profit from).

For cell phone type Internet access it becomes a bit more gray. But, cell phone companies typically lock customers into 2 year contracts with huge cancellation penalties and endless undocumented fees for all the things that other companies call "business expenses". The environment that cell phone companies operate in does not allow customers to change to another service if they become unhappy. If you are not free to change service providers then you are back at a monopoly or "public utility" and companies should not be able to sabotage the quality of service for application "A" in order to force you to buy application "B" from them.

Huge corporations want to continue to make huge profits from telephone calls and texting. Internet access of the "Net Neutrality" type is a huge threat to huge corporations. They want the ability to sabotage services at will to "help" people make the choice to use their services.

What is really going on with "Net Neutrality"? Simple, look at and think about the people who smell the money.

Any issue related to terrorism, child pornography or other illegal content is important but a totally different issue. The "Net Neutrality" issue is simple: should big corporations be able to sabotage quality of service at will in order to make bigger profits?

Thanks Bruce,

I couldn't have said it better

Anyone who is old enough to remember when ATT/ ITT was the only game in the free world for phone service understands what happens when a monopoly is left to their own devices...

If the providers don't step up with a plan, the government will fill the void

I remember ATT/ITT. Competent, effective... but also quite expensive.

But let's be clear on this: that monopoly was created and maintained by government. The early development of the telephone industry was by many small providers; it was government that forced the consolidation of what became ATT, not the market, and as soon as that government support was removed ATT broke up. The resulting competition lowered prices and brought on a plethora of new services.

What you appear to be advocating, however, is giving government more control, not less - creating a de facto monopoly which will stifle competition and cause stagnation. It also provides an easy avenue for those in power to excommunicate anybody whose opinions they disapprove of.

Revisionest history

the government had to forcibly break up ITT & they did not go quietly comcast will control the content & the delivery, if they get their way

Actually, when AT&T was broken up, it was broken up into a bunch of "Baby Bells" that maintained their local monopoly on the "last mile"- the only open competition was with the long distance arena. There was a tremendous amount of battling between the new long-distance carriers and the Baby Bells over access to that last mile...

Same when the airline industry was "deregulated"- the way it was done actually decreased competition, because carriers were allowed to build their hub and spoke networks, and then gained control of all the small commuter lines that fed their hubs. Today, all major hubs are pretty much dominated by a single carrier...

This is not my idea of letting market forces work...

For our new friend a link to the last round

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/13331/On-the-Fence-About-Net-Neutrality

There is already surveillance of all internet traffic...

Should the FCC be in charge of allocating the wireless bandwidth?

How does one determine "Net Neutrality"? Is there a way to measure it? And how do we know the "Net" has ever been "neutral"?