Where the Candidates Stand On Net Neutrality 420
nmpost writes "Net neutrality is one of the biggest issues with regard to the internet today. At the heart of the issues is how much control ISPs will be allowed to have over their networks. Each candidate has come out with a strong position on the matter, and whoever wins will have a drastic effect on the future of the internet. Barack Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality. Under his watch, the FCC has implemented net neutrality rules. These restrictions did not apply to wireless networks, though; a gaping loophole that will be problematic in the future, as mobile internet is exploding in popularity. Until it is addressed, Obama can only be given a barely passing grade with regard to net neutrality. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has come down on the other side of the issue. The former Massachusetts governor strongly opposes net neutrality. According to Politico, Romney believes net neutrality will restrict ISPs, and that they alone should govern their networks. The governor has stated that he wants as little regulation of the internet as possible."
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
He's anti, though he claims to be "pro freedom." In actuality all that means is that he opposes regulation.
Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (Score:2, Informative)
Why would he be afraid? He is an agent for the wealthiest people on the planet. People like Paul Ryan are paid to steal the wealth of the middle class and give that wealth to their masters. Paul Ryan approaches this task with sincerity which fools some people into thinking he is a sincere, decent human being. That is far from the truth. If you are a member of the middle class, he is sincerely going to fuck you over, again and again, until you have nothing left to take, that is all.
Re:Which is the only logical stance (Score:2, Informative)
Paul is "pro-freedom" only when it's consistent with his prejudices. For example, he supports "antisodomy" laws. Consider that next time you're doing something kinky.
Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (Score:3, Informative)
The Republicans would get less flak for the fringe elements of their side if the reins weren't handed over to them.
Increasingly, you see the Republican party as a whole kowtowing to its fringe elements rather than taking the more sensible, moderate road. It has been this way for years, most notably since Obama first started campaigning, but it has been especially bad since the 2010 elections.
I keep waiting for a responsible adult to stand up and tell the Tea Party fanatics to calm down.
Just turned in a term paper on Net Neutrality. (Score:5, Informative)
Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means?
I have seen no evidence that any of them do.
I just turned in a term paper on Network Neutrality issues and regulatory approaches to them.
One thing I discovered was that Obama (or at least his relevant policy wonk and/or speechwriter) was quite aware of the issues and was coming down strongly on the side of regulating to prevent entertainment/ISP conglomerate oligopolists from using their control of the pipes to strangle their content and services competition and shaft their customers.
Which may not be the right approach. But they did seem to be QUITE up on things.
Relevant Obama quote, from a June 8 2006 podcast:
Re:The way it changes is, fight from below (Score:4, Informative)
The only way to fight these local municipalities is, well, locally.
You mean like we did so successfully with school segregation? And Jim Crow? And Voting Rights? Yeah, the locals were real good on that.. When the locals start acting like a bunch of gangsters, sometimes you have to call in the cavalry.
Re:Only regulations create monopolies (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but the facts simply don't bare you out. There are "natural monopolies" that is why we have utility companies. Given an open market, the largest players will eventually coalesce into a single all powerful service provider, and because they own the entire net, they will be in a position to call any cost to their service they like. That's why we originally broke up Ma Bell? Remember? Have you noticed the little Bells all getting back together again? Have you noticed the number of mergers between service providers?
The system you speak of no longer exists. It may have at one time, but it hasn't been around any time in the last 50 years. Corporations have the power. They join to concentrate power. They continue to change the environment to discourage small to medium sized business, and funnel all the society's wealth into their coffers. You want to flatten the playing field, then by all means, deregulate. But not until.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
Forget about Paul, he's not going to be President or even Vice President. Ryan scares the bejebus out of me. I'm not particularly happy with abortion as a means of birth control, but I'm a firm believer that the person already here trumps the one who may or may not be coming. Ryan has made it perfectly clear given the chance, he will outlaw all abortion. That includes abortions, related to rape, incest and necessary to save the Mother's life. He wants to pass a law that says a human being exists the instant a sperm meets an egg, and that the new single celled person has all the constitutional rights afforded a citizen of the United States. That means when your doctor collects a couple dozen eggs, and fertilizes them en vitro, those are all people, and must be brought to term or the parents and the doctor are committing murder. These are not sane people. If you've read the Ryan Plan, it can pretty much be reduced to, eliminate Federal Government, give all the money to corporations, and we live happily ever after. Oh, you need to figure out what to do with an entire generation of dying old people, and a few generations of dying poor people but who cares, they're just old and poor people.
I'm having the hardest time reconciling people who claim to be christian and then turn around and quote Scrooge like the words were born in their own mouths. "If they're dying they should get on with it and reduce the surplus population..." This is why we need regulation. Corporations have one purpose, to make wealth, and they will gladly do it over your bleaching bones if they have to. It is the only way we have left to forge a society predicated on the needs and wants of human beings.
Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (Score:4, Informative)
ISPs (AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, Verison, and friends) are 100% behind Romney. There are no significant ISPs putting money behind Obama. On the other side we have Microsoft, Google, eBay, Vonage, Netflix, and Amazon, who are all companies that provide content and services over the Internet, and they are 100% behind Obama. In short, the ISPs want to charge the big content providers extra money to be quickly accessible, or even accessible at all, over their network. It's a shakedown by stupid tube maintainers of the corporations whilch provide real value, and a major thread to innovation and smaller content providers. Dorks like TCP inventor Bob Kahn refuse to comprehend that net neutrality is not about regulating how packets are routed, and instead continue to espouse the AT&T view that Google wants to destroy the internet by shackling "network engineers". It's about routing Vonage packets and Netflix packets without purposely destroying their QoS. It's about not being evil.
Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (Score:5, Informative)
No, go read up. Obama understands and promotes net neutrality, which has happened under his administration through very reasonable FCC rulings. Romney has stated his anti-net-neutrality position, though like most topics, we don't really know what he knows or thinks about this issue. Ryan, on the other hand, has co-sponsored every piece of anti-net-neutrality legislation written for the GOP by AT&T and friends. He clearly understands the issues, and sides with the internet toll trolls.
Re:Two can play (Score:2, Informative)
Yes: every ISP/TV provider out there counts Netflix against your bandwidth cap, but not the pay-per-view choices you get through their service.
Entirely different network, not actually an issue under net neutrality. There is a specific example of Comcast not counting some of their own OTT traffic against your cap but you need to be very specific about that because on demand services in general, certainly not the common ones, don't work that way.
Phone calls are free, but Skype counts against your bandwidth cap.
Typically a different network, even for the VoIP based providers
Watching live TV doesn't slow down your internet connection, but streaming a video through Youtube does.
Extremely different kind of network. QAM delivered video is fundamentally one to many,oh, and on entirely different channels on the wire from your IP services.better examples please. These are very leaky.
Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. A church is not an ISP, nor is a business who is allowing you to use their Internet connection for free, nor a library, nor any other person or entity that isn't charging you for use of the service. These rules do not apply to them.
Wrong again. The actual rules are fairly straightforward and easy to understand. The first rule is that the company must be transparent about its network management policies. The second is that it may not block anything, and the third is that it may not give anyone preferential treatment. None of these things prevent a company from cutting off your service when your contracted coverage runs out.
See also #1.
Ah, now we get to the point—the magic libertarian theory that competition will somehow fix censorship. Here's the reality:
What an amazing coincidence. That's the first of the three FCC net neutrality rules. Unfortunately, information doesn't help when you're outside DSL range. In most places, your only remaining options are cable (from a single cable company) or a dedicated trunk line. You cannot usefully have a free market when the cost of infrastructure is so high that the market naturally degrades to a monopoly. So you have two choices: liberate all the telephone, cable, and fiber lines and lease them back to any ISP for a line rental fee plus the cost of running a trunk line and dropping a router into the government-owned central office, or regulate the commercial entities so that they cannot screw the customers. Those really are the only two options that can actually work.