Community poll forum: Who do you think should have control over Internet content?

Net neutrality!

Neutrality has been a key tenet of the Internet so far, and it is essential to keep the freedom of speech that the net enjoys. Today all packets are created equal, no matter which web site they came from. If we let ISP's/telco's slow down (or "not speed up") the packets of some sites arbitrarily because they didn't pay some toll fee for VIP (very important packet) treatment we are effectively letting telcos censor where we surf. At times when pipes get clogged, the packets of non-VIP sites could get so painfully bogged down that consumers lose all incentive to visit those sites. That is a subtle form of censorship, and it's contrary to everything the net stands for.

Guaranteeing such a basic net right should not be left to chance. It should be done via legislation, especially when there are huge profit incentives for telcos to negotiate away this right from their customers in the future.

the concept behind charging more for more bandwith is SOMEWHAT reasonable. if ur site is sucking tons of juice, i understnad there should be a difference in price (i UNDERSTAND IT, not believe it)

the only problem is that right now (i believe) that it is impossible for the gov to stop me from viewing adfaflkd site. mab if it's in the us they can shut down the company and then site

but if its from anywhere then they cant do anything about it.

this will end up being 1 step towards china.

i can already see the future.
we will be living off technology that is controlled by the gov and big buisness. thats the beauty of wut r internet is now....its really FREE (i post it you cant stop me etc.)

its funny im always tetering on becoming a conspiritorist (sp?) because everything the gov does supposedly has a kind face to it but then again wutever is being done can be used against us.

all i know is that this somehow seems like an echo of the patriot act. (dont know if this has been mentioned)

im sorry if i really offend anyone with this BUT id rather have "terrorist attackS" (there has only been one that origonated outside US soil from wut ive known) because the gov couldnt search through everything and censor us. than us be "safe" (impossible) because they could read my emails, instant messages, google searches, and everyhing else i type into this damn keyboard.

i see the purpose behind paying for more bandwith (i belive thats wut it is) but i see where this might go AND I DONT LIKE IT

You say that not having net neutrality laws will affect content availability. I disagree completely. A properly built network will make delivery on your online purchase order wait maybe 30 milli seconds more so streaming video can be delivered uninterupted. Wow. In your version of the internet you must think Telco's have an obligation to run a free internet, you are completely wrong. They own the pipes therefore they should be able to decide how the pipes are used. You also say what they should be forced to do, but you don't say how to pay for it. If you don't like the business decisions, and it is a buisness, of the Internet Backbone operators your free to disconnect your service and build your own network.

You also overlook the obvious, market costs will determine what a "content" provider pays the Backbone operators. Someone will always offer a better price.

Also why are you singling out the Telco's? You believe Cable and Sat service providers won't link speed and cost? Good one.

You can read my post above. However, not having network neutrality allows large corporations the ability to decide what web sites can be viewed and at what speed. This will be based on which web sites can pay the highest dollars for quick access. That is wrong. It leaves the smaller companies, Mom and Pop sites, and individuals with no option ... access to their web sites will be slow because they can't pay.

I've also heard that the companies will be able to block access to sites. This is WRONG! I want access to any and all sites at the same speed that I have now.

You talk about the cost companies have to pay in order to provide service. They are already paid by us as our ISPs. I pay my ISP a monthly fee and, in return, that ISP gives me access to the Internet.

Isn't that the best way to have the Internet ... without the intervention and "rules" of large companies and the government? I think so.

We've already seen what large companies and government can do. Do we want to expand that?

I used to suffer with dial up too, so I feel for you. I'm lucky and grateful to have high speed access.

Can you afford and access satellite internet service?

The Internet is primarily a private network of thousands of companies that have interconnected for their own purposes and benefit. Our personal or business access to the Internet is profit in some entrepreneur's pocket--as it should be. The Internet does not belong to everyone, regardless of the rhetoric we often hear.

The companies that put the money into the infrastructure of the Internet should have the right to control what content passes over their portion of the Net, just like you as a private landowner should have the right to control who passes over your land. FREEDOM is the most important thing. FREEDOM is EVEN MORE important than people's lives! Freedom is certainly more important than our access to the Internet. If a business decides to control content on the Internet, they SHOULD and DO have that right!

Service providers didnt get all that money by being stupid. If they try to lean in a certain direction that many of their customers did not like eventually the customers would simply go away. Then the companies paying for bandwidth would complain to the service providers that they were moving on to a company down the road that offers a larger customer database. due to a better variety of content. Consumers are in control of this thing. If you dont like it dont spend any money on it and I guarantee you that at some point they will provide a service that makes you the consumer happy. McDonalds dont serve 43 billion burgers because they taste good they did it because they made the experience of going to Mcdonalds more disirable than cooking dinner. If the experience was not good they would be out of business. Same with ISP they are not going to make your online experience unpleasant if possible. They know you will dump them like a hot rock and find another. Thats why it works now I guess. The ISP actually tried to provide a good online experience in order to get the customer. That will not change, Not for me anyway. I guess if there was now demand for a certain type of site or material they would drop it but if there was a site with no one viewing it its not doing anybody including the owner any good. Sharp Businessmen will keep the net on track. Content providers provide what is in demand. No one sets up a site to loose money.Public demand will dictate what happens on the web.

The folks who spent thier money on the network should be able to charge whatever the market will allow. Content providers have no buisness telling network owners what they can charge. Do the network owners try to set prices for products sold by the content folks?

In reality the networks already sell more speed for more money to consumers, this ''discussion'' is about nothing more than already wealthy companies trying to squeeze price breaks from the network owners.

Right now tiered pricing exsists for tiered connection speed. The people paying less money know on the front end that they will get a slower speed than the person paying full price, why should business get a break?

Corporate America already makes sickening profits for the CEO's on the backs of the working man who rarely shares in the rewards, now they will try to force cost increases on the average guy to support thier greedy desire for low or no priced service.

Mark my words, a price break legislated for business WILL be made up by increases in consumer internet connection fee's.

If telcos and cable companies don't want to discriminate against non-affiliated content providers, why are they spending so much time, money, and effort opposing legislation that would guarantee a bias-free Internet? Why should they have the power to charge people more to use services that they don't profit from directly? They should care about providing reliable service at low cost, not what tiers they can create to extract maximum profit from their customers. For crying out loud, there is often just one cable and one DSL provider in any given location, if that.

The bill of rights does not say they have to pipe the free info to your desktop at a fair rate. oNLY that it is available to you in some form. Freedom of information does not mean information is free. It means that you are free to access info by whatever means it is available by and cannot be hidden in a drawer for only a limited few to know about and benifit from. If info was free there would be alot of colleges out of business fast. But you do have the right to attend that college and pay the tuition if you want the information they have to offer.

I don't know which side to take and as long as the net remains FREE, I frankly don't care.

Whatever the original purpose of the net was, is a moot point. My vote goes to keeping the 'net as is.

I hesitate to bring this point up, but here goes:
I'm disabled and am temporally bedridden[got VERY sick]. I bring this up because the net is my only sense of freedom, even when I'm able to get back into my power wheelchair, I'll still be unable to fully get out and fully socialise with my fellow humans.

One side of this, if put into motion, could block me from many activities non-disabled folks enjoy on a regular basis. It's too complacated to further elaborate.

I totally agree with you!!! You're the 1st one I've read that says it all and boils it down to the true facts. It's all about $$$ and if we all stand together and ban any kind of controlled take over, they will have to listen. I'm so tired of everything being about $$$$$$$

Thats what I have harped about in ten other post to people. We are in at least partial control. If the net ceases to be a viable means of doing business and making money it will be because the ISP tried to control the content. And the people said "Hell no we wont go. Orr something along those lines. We are the ones that the companies on the web are profiting from. If that stops because we are not happy what will happen? Along will come a provider that will try to make us happy so they can make some money. Its a business not a inalienable right of the people. And as long as it is a business they will run it in such a way that it makes money if possible. That is by creating something desirable and thats the only way. If it becomes more disireable to drive and do all your shopping at the mall you will and the man on the web will go out of business or put up a building close to the mall.

Money. Plain and simple. No bs. You all forgot something. In your little tirades, escapades, to battle it out for control (power) in the end it is the user you all need.

We are the consumers who pay for all this stuff. And what do we need? INFORMATION. You can have all cables and wires you want to make it go, BUT without that content, I find it suffice to say if that were not there, I don't think I would have much use for the internet.

I like it the way it is. You all mess it up, I will see you in the far future maybe on a net just like this.