You know, my friend actually brought an article in favor of net nuetrality onto a politics board (trying to get people to comment to the FCC to go forth with net nuetrality regulations) and there are a ton of people on there who are against it b/c they feel it interferes with the free market, and the free market will regulate the internet just fine because if people don't like the regulations of one company, they will move onto another. Personally, I don't understand that concept, because I think if you allow the companies to discriminate against content you're going to get several companies' versions of the internet (if you are lucky enough to be in an area with several competing ISPs), but not necessarily have access to all legal content with anybody.

Suffice it to say, I was quite surprised at the amount of people against net nuetrality regulations.

Conservatives: Government bad, competition good

Consumers: Just give me my damn internet and LEAVE ME ALONE

Conservatives: Ah, you're on OUR side

Socialists: Shut up; we know what's good for you so we'll make your choices for you and you'll like it

You want the best U-Verse TV experience? Well, I don't want that. I want the best file download experience - from any site I choose to trust. My parents want the best webmail speed (they have a really slow connection), my colleague needs decent VoIP QoS and I'm sure millions want the best gaming experience.

If you want a network that prioritizes television, and you don't mind that the one particular provider controls that priority, it already exists. Many people simply call it television. Others call it cable, or satellite. Some even receive broadcasts over the air.

The Internet has to be neutral because it isn't used just by you - it's used by everyone. You can manage your personal network however you like but the connection between it and other networks have to be neutral or it won't be the 'best' network. It won't be usable.

Heck, we're all screwed...

If you die in the Matrix, you die in real life.

The best that is possible is a few monopolistic companies. I believe that they should service local providers who compete for service and not be allowed to directly interact with customers, but thats another matter. With a monopoly situation we are in with telcos and cable providers there has to be very strict regulation. This is the reality of the situation we are in, it has to dealt with as such.

@ARP: Glenn Beck never ceases to amaze.

Didn't we try that ~15 years ago, only to have the telecoms effectively wipe their butts with the money?

If we do not protect net neutrality, that does NOT mean things will stay the same.

@Brontide: Also, technically, that's not astroturfing as it was encouragement by an employer to its employees. Astroturfing is what we have here, industry groups funding "grass roots" organizations to pretend like its a upswell of populism that's opposing net neutrality.

@hi: Oh dear, where to start...

1) Um, your free market hero, Bush was the primary user of signing statements saying he didn't need to follow the law because everything he did was under his power of commander in chief of the armed forces.

2) The government created the internet. If you're so opposed to government involvement, you can simply refuse to use such a socialist tool.

3) The government hasn't been very involved in regulating the Internet. However, the telcos have sucessfully consolidated and have created government approved monopolies in many areas.

@theSuperman: No, you have it all wrong. They just need to work harder to pay the ISP so that their traffic/website isn't blocked or throttled.

@Trai_Dep: Ah yes, he's taken a proposed government regulation that says that telecomes can't block/throttle what users do on the internet (with exceptions if it's unlawful) and turned it into: "do you really want the government controlling what you see on the internet."

Amazing.

@oneandone: PS - I couldn't find a way to make my comment sound non-snarky, but it wasn't intended that way. Just a factual note.

@TCama: Right now, it's just about regulation, not legislation. Minor point, but (sometimes) worth noting.

I understand what you mean about political, though - does anyone know if the same rules that restrict non-profits from influencing legislation also prohibit them from commenting on regulations?

@Cant_stop_the_rock: They are pretty neutral now. Occasionally you get someone like Comcast actively interfering with user's connections, and then they get smacked down by the FCC. Hard.

@wagenejm: Making blanket assumptions, aren't we?

@pecan 3.14159265: HTTP appears to be a coalition of other Hispanic oriented groups and trade associations. HTTP also appears to operate out of the same office space as Aspira (www.aspira.org). Their website claims that they work in three main areas: "Youth Leadership and Community Service, Educational Access and Careers, and Community Mobilization for Educational Excellence" among Latino youth. Aspira also has a short blurb indicating that they are opposed to Net Neutrality.

To look at the funding for HTTP, you would probably need to look at the individual organizations that make up HTTP and who sits on the board of directors for each of those organizations.

The government ALREADY HAS CONTROL over these portions of our lives and has for decades. The concept here is a rewriting of existing rules to make them better and more applicable to today's changing technology.

AT&T in particular has been buying themselves as close to a monopoly as they can possibly get for a long time now through the government. They have also been paying off the FCC to turn their heads the other way in a manner of speaking.

Now, the tables are turning though. The FCC is filled with far less corruption and they are actually trying to modernize themselves to do their job properly. Obviously, businesses like AT&T fear such things because it means relinquishing the monopolistic grasp that they currently have on us. God forbid they are one day forced to maintain themselves by competing properly strictly through the use of quality services at competitive prices right? The new net neutrality rules alone will not be enough to establish that, but they are a huge step in the right direction.

@hi: Would you care to offer any backup to an argument that appears to me to be rather empty? What government involvement in the Internet do they already have, beyond the fact that the initial investment was originally put forth by them and by the academic community? Their involvement is WHY IT EXISTS for all of us, and why it is as accessible and free as it is currently, for you, me, and the HTTP. Really, if you're going to spout your fear-mongering, at least have something to back it up.

@Brontide: I agree that neither is optimal. We're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation - at this point, we can only hope for the lesser evil. I dislike government regulation as much as others do, and I have my doubts as to the FCC's abilities - but the alternative is very clear. Telcos will raise prices, telcos will continue to throttle internet, and they will continue to do as they see fit. That much is clear, and I don't like it.

Astroturfing at its finest. When will people learn?

@TCama: The big companies are smart enough to hide behind a smaller interest group, which in turn funds the "grassroots effort."

For example: Rachel Maddow did a long piece on the astroturfing behind the Tea Parties, it turned out if you traced back to parent companies and groups, you eventually found the GOP. And by eventually, I don't mean 20 degrees of separation. I mean like, 2 or 3.

Would we let GM cut a deal with the highway department to give the right of way to people driving to Chevy dealerships?

What wasn't confirmed or researched in anyway until Ars wrote their article was AT&T's involvement with non-profit orgs. It looks like AT&T has been supplying a lot of those orgs with cash just like they lobby politicians. Hence, the resulting anti-net neutrality internet comments and letters sent to the FCC.

You win the Internets today. Kiff would be proud of you.

@Brontide: Just because we know they are doesn't lessen the importance of reporting such things.

I want my network connection to work well. I want to let people that know how to accomplish that, do that. I do not want congress to be my network admin.

If my service provider is not managing my connection well to get to the services and content I would like to access, I will go to another provider who will.

Internet Service Providers should treat all traffic equally and not discriminate or charge based on destination. If they filter or shape based on protocol it must affect 100% of that protocol, should not be based on destination, and be clearly identified to customers in advance.

They mention things like video streaming and how that might be worthy of a special exception for reasons very similar to your concerns.

Some content is more time-sensitive than other content - online gaming, streaming video, VOIP, etc. Why would I want it to have the same priority as a file I'm downloading that is not time-sensitive?

There's also a link there so you can read the actual draft released by the FCC and understand what's really up for discussion.

More government in this case is a good thing. More "corrupt" government would be a bad thing though. The FCC has a job to do and I am glad to see that they are finally working hard to do that job correctly.

AT&T Asks Employees To Oppose Net Neutrality
By Alex Chasick, 2:46 PM on Tue Oct 20 2009, 6,011 views

A reader sent us a letter that AT&T sent to its employees asking them to tell the FCC they oppose net neutrality. This comes after the FCC announced plans to investigate and enact net neutrality rules that will ensure that internet service providers (like AT&T) treat all content equally. The letter and a rebuttal are inside.

[consumerist.com]

Well said.

I want my network connection to work well. I want to let people that know how to accomplish that, do that. I do not want congress to be my network admin.

If my service provider is not managing my connection well to get to the services and content I would like to access, I will go to another provider who will.

@hi:
Ah, yes. Government is evil. As opposed to big corporations, that have all of our best interests in mind.

Basically what the telecom companies want is the ability to bribe every content provider on the web.

We need LESS government intervention. You really want them more involved in the internet than they already are? Just think of all the extra signing statements attached to the legislation.

Everyone thinks this net neutrality debate is over whether AT&T can charge Google for delivering their content, because some AT&T exec who has no idea what he's talking about mentioned it a while back. People don't understand that if they want their U-verse TV service to work well, it has to be given priority over your neighbor's bittorrent downloads.

If you're going to demand a neutral network, at least understand what you're demanding.

Their logic for opposing net neutrality is not that good. They are opposing it for fear it will happen, yet there is no proof that it actually WOULD happen. Well, I guess the ISPs are though.

The Internet (and networks in general) are not neutral now.

@pecan 3.14159265: It's a scare tactic that the telecoms use. Basically, give us what we want, or we'll take our toys and go home. I don't think they'd actually follow through with it, but it scares the right people into giving in.

All the more reason to use that stimulus money that we're giving to telecoms to build out government owned lines that any telecom can lease and provide services. If you're rich enough to have your own lines, fine. It would actually encourage competition, rather than stifle it.

@JGKojak: Save the internet, save the world?

@JGKojak: I wouldn't go that far. But I think it would hobble a lot of its growth and hurt the technology economy, with only a few of the most powerful telecoms and industries winning.

@dragonfire81: The article basically stated that HTTP was opposed to net neutrality because it inherantly believed that net neutrality would stifle infrastructure. Jobs would be created, but not exactly for blue collar workers - many of whom are Hispanic. If you believe that net neutrality will stifle infrastructure investment, and blue collar jobs (like repairmen) will be lost, you have to oppose net neutrality.

It's just that there isn't evidence to suggest that companies will stop investing in infrastructure due to the success of net neutrality.

Kill net neutrality and you kill the internet.

Notice that John McCain is beaming at the top of the list with almost $900,000 total in contributions. Gee...I wonder why he is behind the "Internet Freedom Act"? I wonder who's "freedom" it is intended to protect? Could it be the monopolistic environment that the telecoms and cable companies current have on us? Maybe...

[realtime.sunlightprojects.org]

@TCama: They do disclose major funding, but they really only have to do it to the IRS to maintain their nonprofit status (the filing is open for public view though). That's one of the reasons why they can get away with astroturfing.

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Honestly, this whole debate is like listening to Zapp Brannigan.

On a related note, you have to give HTTP some credit for a witty name.