Wrong. All you are doing is allowing ISPs to block whatever content they choose without the first amendment getting in the way. Net neutrality is necessary to prevent ISPs from blocking any website they choose merely because of content thereby depriving the people of their constitutional speech rights.
>> Ted Monday, November 9, 2009 1:55 PM

Tim??? What have you done? You just gave the big government collectivists another way to take away our right. Ted, exactly what part of "Congress shall made no law..." says anything about ISP's? You have a right to speech that THE GOVERNMENT can't take away. No one has to give you the tools to speak. ISP's can block anything they want, it is their network, they own it, you might even say it is THEIR property. If they only want to allow you to go to sites with cute kittens, they can do that. If you don't like it, change providers or start your own ISP and run it how you want. If people like how you do it, you will make money and the others will go out of business.
>> TCH Monday, November 9, 2009 2:51 PM

TCH, In other words, you want the Internet to turn into the New York Times and CNN.
>> Ted Monday, November 9, 2009 3:06 PM

And when have ISPs done that, Ted? If you said "never," you're right! Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
>> Jimmy Hart Monday, November 9, 2009 3:32 PM

Ted, in other words you want the government to step in and tell people how to use their own property?
>> TCH Monday, November 9, 2009 3:54 PM

Venkman and TCH ganging up on people again? Sounds familiar =). I will attempt to be more cordial, and I'll give up rather quickly if we can't have an intelligent conversation. First, Jimmy/Venkman: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/11/lots-of-smoke-but-likely-to-be-few-flames-in-dc-for-comcast-nbc.html. It's about tv, but it's a very related story. The FCC apparently already has rules about this problem with tv - why is it so unheard of to assume the same problems could come up with the internet? And TCH, the government tells people all the time how they can use their property. That alone is an insufficient argument.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 4:35 PM

Well, I'll take advantage of your reticence to give a few more arguments. Here are a couple of very recent articles arguing for net neutrality: http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/11/06/net-neutrality-pro-business http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/11/04/why-future-online-speech-depends-net-neutrality. They dispute your claim that ISPs have never done this. In particular, AT&T has blocked Skype, because it competes with its services. The second article clearly defines what net neutrality supporters want, and the government would have no influence other than to demand that all traffic be treated equally.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 4:57 PM

That is the worst argument I have ever heard. People mug people all the time too does that make it ok? So why bother even trying to defend property rights at all? The government already infringes on them, so lets just let them infringe on all of them. What exactly is the point in having property if the government can either take it away or control it (effectively taking it away)? You never have explained how you have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. Can I just take what you have created because I want it and it is unfair for you to have it?
>> TCH Monday, November 9, 2009 5:00 PM

TCH, I didn't say that argument about telling people how to use their property was invalid, just insufficient. Sure, there are times when the government should not tell people how to use their property. However, there are times when they definitely should, such as the proper use of an automobile, a gun, or even libelous speech in printed material. Merely saying that the government shouldn't tell people how to use their property, without an explanation of why, is insufficient, because sometimes the government should. Feel free to provide explanation of why the government should not in this case. But please be more cordial if you expect an intelligent response.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 5:06 PM

I'll have you note, also, that I never said that we should get the internet for free. Perhaps my use of the word "right" in our previous conversation was unfortunate, as we were using the same term to mean different things. It would be abhorrent to force network providers to give access to the internet for free, as then it would have to be paid for by taxes. People should pay for access to the internet, and pay different amounts for different amounts of bandwidth (requiring ISPs to give everyone unlimited bandwidth at the same price is one thing that some are proposing that I vehemently oppose). Let's be clear about what we are actually arguing, and not assume that others are arguing for things they aren't.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 5:10 PM

... Who cares if Comcast is buying NBC? What does that have to do with net neutrality? Seriously? 1. it has to do with television, and 2. did you freak out when AOL and Time Warner merged? And "SavetheInternet.com" isn't exactly the most reliable source for making a case about net neutrality. Does the Internet need saving? Nope. If you find a link that says, "ISP Blocks Certain Site in Self Interest," I'll be more inclined to listen.
>> Jimmy Hart Monday, November 9, 2009 5:14 PM

The source of an argument doesn't make any difference. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit, not on who their supporters are. It was the arguments I was showing you. If you refuse to read them, that's unfortunate. It's a well established fact that AT&T and other mobile carriers block Skype and other VoIP services. If you want a different source, here it is: http://iphone.click2creation.com/2009/04/mobile-carriers-seek-to-block-skype-on-iphone-blackberry/. And like I said, the tv argument is important because it is analogous to the internet. When the people providing access to content also provide some of the content, they have a huge incentive to promote their own content to the detriment of other companies and consumers.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 5:21 PM

Also, where would you go to find arguments in favor of net neutrality? atr.org? If any site that has any bias is "unreliable," you can't get information anywhere. Just because a site supports some particular idea doesn't make that site unreliable, just biased. Everyone has bias. Of course the people that support net neutrality are going to argue for it. Where you are mistaken is in thinking that their arguments are unreliable. It would unreliable to get arguments in favor of net neutrality from sites that are against it.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 5:27 PM

I'm not going to dignify the source argument with a response. "When the people providing access to content also provide some of the content, they have a huge incentive to promote their own content to the detriment of other companies and consumers." -- Think about that statement for a while. Seriously. Is that why you're for net neutrality? Where else can we find examples of people who sell a product while simultaneously producing the product they provide? Try EVERY retail establishment in America, for one. Do they stifle choice? Can you ONLY buy Radio Shack brand batteries at Radio Shack? No - CHOICE keeps radio shack in business. And it's the same with television.
>> Jimmy Hart Monday, November 9, 2009 5:32 PM

The ONLY legitimate action of government is to protect individual rights from being violated by the force of others. So yes they can stop people from killing each other with guns or cars as that would violate another person's right to their life. However, the government can't tell me that if I have a car and another doesn't that we need "car neutrality" and they need equal access to my car. An ISP doing any nefarious act that you can imagine does not violate any of your rights unless it violates a pre-signed contractual agreement. Hence, the government has no authority to control any actions of an ISP. Limiting your use of their property does not violate your rights.
>> TCH Monday, November 9, 2009 5:46 PM

The Internet has grown to be too powerful for the powers that be, and the powers that be are seeking to rein in this "troublesome" medium of communication in order to turn it into another NBCCBSABCCNNFOXNEWSNYTIMESWSJWASHPOSTBOSTONGLOBE. That's all this effort against net neutrality is about. The government "taking over the Internet" and infringing on private property is a red herring. If you actually look at the four principles adopted by the FCC as well as statements by people such as FCC Commissioner Copps, you will clearly see that this "Obama administration takeover of the Internet" is pure fear mongering.
>> Ted Monday, November 9, 2009 5:49 PM

If it's the same with television, why does the FCC already have rules "safe-guarding against distribution companies withholding their content from competing distributors" (from a link I posted earlier)? The fact is that it has happened - peer-to-peer communication and VoIP are just two examples. Retail stores aren't really in the same category. When you provide access to speech, and you also provide speech, whose speech are you going to promote? I would prefer to have my internet not be either liberal or conservative leaning, to have an open connection to any site I want to go to. And small businesses shouldn't have to pay huge prices to let people have access to their sites.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 5:54 PM

TCH, it's true that the ISPs own the cables that make the internet. Your examples about "car neutrality" and others that you've used aren't really applicable, however, as no one is saying that we should get the internet for free, and have a "right" to access of the internet. What is being said is that the internet is such an important means of communication that it is justifiable to ensure the openness of speech on the internet, that internet providers should not be allowed to provide faster service to a particular website because of some amount of money the owner has paid, or some special interest. The reasoning is that it would destroy the openness and innovation that has made the internet what it is.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 6:01 PM

As an aside, I'm really quite curious why the "source argument" was "not dignified" with a response. I'm seriously concerned about you completely disregarding a dissenting opinion merely because it comes from a source that disagrees with you. That's not a very good way to foster intelligent discussion. Clearly everyone has some kind of bias, and arguments should not be disregarded because the arguer's bias is different from your own. That leads to pretty one-sided people who never learn anything, and won't listen to good ideas when they differ from their pre-conceived notions.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 6:14 PM

"Peer to peer and VoIP are just examples." Examples of ISPs curbing consumers from sucking too much bandwidth, yes. They're acting on behalf of the consumer, NOT themselves. "I would prefer to have my internet not be either liberal or conservative leaning, to have an open connection to any site I want to go to." - You already have that. Go out and use it and enjoy it. When ISPs start blocking sites based on self interest (not on the interest of consumers), come back and talk to me. Seriously, if there's another example, I'd love to hear it.
>> Jimmy Hart Monday, November 9, 2009 8:06 PM

The VoIP is not an example of consumers using a lot of bandwidth, and peer to peer communication was not only about using bandwidth. The VoIP issue is that mobile telephone companies don't want people who pay them for data plans to be using their internet access to make phone calls. Except they're paying the mobile phone company for mobile internet access... I'll grant you that there aren't a lot of examples other than those two (I was over-eager in my previous comment, having just spent some time looking for other examples), but to me those two are somewhat troublesome. The wikipedia article on net neutrality offers some good opinions on both sides, by the way, and you might find that a more "reliable" source.
>> Matt Monday, November 9, 2009 10:28 PM

"The VoIP issue is that mobile telephone companies don't want people who pay them for data plans to be using their internet access to make phone calls." Really? Then why does AT&T let iPhone customers download 'free text' apps? Don't they want people to pay for text plans, too? They don't let people download Skype for the same reason they didn't sign a deal with Netflix to have streaming video - their 3G network can't handle it.
>> Jimmy Hart Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:42 PM

Matt- You don't think anyone's arguing for the Internet to be a right and be free of costs? Try FreePress, and the rest of Genachowski's buddies. Genachowski chooses his staff rom FreePress. Check out http://www.freepress.org/ . They've been to the White House 3 times in the last few months to help formulate NN policy. They also endorse government censorship of the right. Also govenment censorship of conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine (or whatever new word they're using now) is the stated objective of at least two FCC commissioners. Why would we be surprised they would not impose "Fairness Doctrine" on the Internet? Already the government is looking to fine webmasters for content they don't like.
>> Max Power Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:41 PM