Rasmussen Poll...

"Rasmussen Poll Finds Little Support for Net Regs"
By John Eggerton
Published December 28, 2010

"According to a just-released Rasmussen Report, only 21% of the respondents want the FCC to regulate the Internet."

"'American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda,' said Rasmussen of its national telephone survey."

"In the poll, 54% opposed regulating the Internet along with other media, while 25% weren't sure."

"According to the poll, 56% of the voters believed the FCC would use its Internet authority to promote a political agenda, with only 28% saying it would regulate it in an unbiased manner. A majority (55%) said they thought the FCC should regulate radio and TV."

"Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 likely voters Dec. 23. The margin of error is plus-or-minus 3%, with a 95% level of confidence."

Just like me, it appears that many Americans don't have much trust for the government and their ability to use regulatory power appropriately.

While it has been asserted that the enforcement of net neutrality legislation will only help to enable a more even playing-ground for all Internet users, the actual fact-of-the-matter is that with more government regulations comes more bureaucracy, and with more bureaucracy comes greater suppression of the voice of the people. 

Right now it seems as if our government is out of control, and tone-deaf to the voice of the people. They operate in a shady manner, and have continued to pass legislation that is unwanted by the popular majority of American citizens.

I guess since net neutrality has now passed in the FCC by a vote of 3 to 2, we'll have to see what's in store for the Internet of the future.

Perspective of an Opponent

"Why Deregulated Broadband is in the Public Interest"
By Scott Cleland
Published May 3, 2010

According to this author, Scott Cleland, “Keeping broadband deregulated is in the public interest because it:

1) Respects the rule of law, Congress' Constitutional authority to set interstate communications policy, the Constitution's protections, and court precedent.

2) Encourages private investment and innovation.

3) Provides the greatest opportunity for economic growth/prosperity, and job creation.

4) Preserves the stability and continuity of current facilities-based broadband competition policy.

5) Continues Congress' bipartisan Internet policy in law to keep the "competitive free market... Internet... unfettered by Federal... regulation."

6) Keeps the Internet user-centric and highly responsive to user needs, wants and concerns.

7) Encourages public-private cooperation to get broadband to all Americans fastest under the FCC's National Broadband Plan.

8) Averts mandating Title II price-regulation (bit-metering) of Internet traffic for the first time.”

I am in much more agreement with this list, than the list previously provided from the perspective of a proponent of net neutrality. Keeping government regulation out of this Internet is in my opinion, the best way to go about it. Governments always cause more problems than they solve; they complicate issues, and take power away from the people.

After everything I’ve read, and from what I’ve learned, I definitely believe that it is in the best interest of the United States public to oppose net neutrality legislation, at least for the time being. If by chance large media corporations begin to run amuck with the Internet and service and quality decrease immensely, then I guess we can cross the net neutrality bridge at that time. I feel as of right now, trying to implement the net neutrality policy into law is jumping the gun a bit; trying to solve a problem that does not yet exist.

The Perspective of a Proponent

"Comcast Can Censor This Blog Post...With FCC's Permission?"
By Marvin Ammori
Published May 3, 2010

According to this author, Marvin Ammori, “If the FCC gives away their authority to protect citizens' right to access the Internet, there is almost no list of ‘horribles’ that are not fair game.” Here is a list, which he derived of the top ten.

“Most of these ‘horribles’ have actually happened as business practices where the carriers got their way. And media companies are believed to refuse ads or stories that criticize them or oppose their position. Comcast (or AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner Cable) could do any of the following and the FCC could do Big Fat Nothing:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast's service or its merger.

(2) Block your vote to the consumerist.com, when you vote Comcast the worst company in the nation. No need for such traffic to get through.

(3) Force every candidate for election to register their campaign-donations webpage and abide by the same weird rules that apply to donations by text message.

(4) Comcast could even require a "processing fee," becoming the Ticketmaster of campaign contributions.

(5) Comcast could reserve the right to approve of every campaign online and every mass email to a political parties or advocacy group's list (as they do with text message short codes).

(6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), and distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an "exclusive" deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

(10) Lie to you about what they're blocking and what they're monitoring. Hell, the FCC wouldn't have any authority to make them honest. The FCC couldn't punish them.”

Yes, this list is frightening, but on the other side of the spectrum, what would the Internet look like if the FCC takes control over the authority to regulate it instead of big corporations? Let’s take for instance the words of Mark Lloyd, who is the Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC; appointed by President Obama.



In this video at the 1 minute mark, Mark Lloyd begins praising Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for his great Democratic revolution. Pardon my concern for this, but for what I’ve read about Hugo Chaves, I find him to be a poor example of an excellent democratic leader.

For example, according to InsideCostaRica.com, “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that the socialist model of development is the only solution for the social and environmental problems of the planet.” InsideCostaRica.com continued with a quote from his regular Sunday opinion column, “Las Lineas de Chavez”, in which Chavez stated, "Now more than ever, we must have a more humane redistribution in economic and social terms, which implies a deepening of the democratic Revolution: the speeding up of the march toward socialism, which is the solution to these tragedies.”

Continuing with Mark Lloyd; I find so many things wrong with his statements in this video. The fact that he believes that through our current media, we are not able to have a sustained, and intelligent dialogue here in the United States is a bit insulting to us as citizens. I understand his point that not everyone has equal access to the media (either television or Internet), which he claims inhibits them from participating intelligently in the democratic process, but in my opinion, if these people really wanted to get involved they could go to a public library and use the Internet there.

The problem is that when these individuals do use the Internet, they do not use it to look up and read about political information. Sure we could provide everyone with the same basic Internet access, but we still can’t control for what people are going to do with this access, and what kind of stuff they will look up, read about, and spend their time doing.

FYI: The Rights of the Public

"Does The Public Have The Right To See The FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal?"
By Elizabeth Woyke
Published December 8, 2010



According to Forbes author, Elizabeth Wok, “One of the ironies about the Federal Communications Commission’s recent clarification of its Net Neutrality stance is that everyone has an opinion on the issue despite the fact that virtually no one has seen the commission’s actual proposal. The FCC reserves the right to keep documents private until the issues they concern go into formal rulemaking. That day, for Net Neutrality, will be December 21st. That’s when the FCC plans to hold a meeting and set its policy regarding the ability of Internet service providers to discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. So in other words, the general public won’t see the FCC’s detailed Net Neutrality proposal until December 21st when the issue comes up for vote—or, more likely, after the vote is tallied.”

This is maddening, and is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that I don’t trust the FCC and would never want to give them any more power than they already have over my life! The crazy thing is that this is standard operating procedure for the FCC; this is how they always do it.

A telecommunications analyst, Peter Pratt believes that this issue is important enough that people deserve the right to see the initial proposal as well as the alterations that are made before December 21st. He is concerned that if people don’t know or don’t understand exactly what’s in the plan that they won’t step forward to question it, and it will pass without any opposition.

“Indeed, Net Neutrality probably ranks as the most controversial issue in the communications sector right now. The FCC’s policies will have the power to affect both how the average consumer experiences the Internet and the future of the multi-billion-dollar telecom industry.”

Net Neutrality Rap

The Communicators: Net Neutrality

The Communicators: Reaction to Net Neutrality Proposal

Lobbying Wars



"Lobbying War Over Net Heats Up"
By Amy Schatz
Published December 10, 2010

Verizon and Google

"A Review of Verizon and Google's Net Neutrality Proposal"
By Cindy Cohn
Published August 10, 2010

“Efforts to protect net neutrality that involve government regulation have always faced one fundamental obstacle: the substantial danger that the regulators will cause more harm than good for the Internet.” This quote pretty much sums up my biggest fear regarding the passing of net neutrality legislation into law. It is my feeling that oftentimes when the government steps in to help solve a problem; they only help in creating another.

Government entities like the FCC worry me because unfortunately they have very little citizen oversight. If we give them the power to regulate the Internet, and they were to begin overstepping their boundaries, how then would we go about taking our Internet freedom back? As of right now the government has very little involvement in the Internet, but it is a very realistic possibility that this could soon change.

If net neutrality is ever enacted into law, the saying, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile,” will become very applicable to the future of our Internet situation. This past May when this article was written, “Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for net neutrality that would give a narrow grant of power to the FCC to enforce neutrality within carefully specified parameters. Unfortunately, the same document that proposed this intriguing idea also included some really terrible ideas. It carved out exemptions from neutrality requirements for so-called ‘unlawful’ content, for wireless services, and for very vaguely-defined ‘additional online services.’ The definition of ‘reasonable network management’ is also problematically vague.” This occurrence demonstrates relatively well what I’m referring to in this instance when I say, “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”

The author, Cindy Cohn, breaks this proposal by Google and Verizon down a little bit further into four components so that it becomes somewhat easier to analyze.

According to Cohn, the first component that this plan promotes is “Limited FCC Jurisdiction,” which she considers to be “Good.” In my opinion this is not “Good.” I suppose limitation to the FCC is a good thing, but the fact that they have limitations at all means that they have some sort of power, which I vehemently object to. Like I’ve mentioned above, the FCC and their lack of oversight causes me concern, and I’d never just willingly hand any of my freedoms over to them (that they don’t already have I guess).

The second component in the proposal by Google and Verizon is “Standard-setting bodies,” which Cohn considers to be “Interesting.” It suggests that “reasonable network management” should be “consistent with the technical requirements, standards or best practices adopted by an independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization.” Again, I do not hold enough trust and confidence in the FCC that I would ever feel comfortable just leaving these important decisions up to them to determine who exactly would sever on the standard-setting board, or Internet community governance initiative. Yes, this proposal implements rules, but the rules are so subjective, there is no telling what they will come to be interpreted as in the future, and from whom they will be interpreted.

The third component of Verizon and Google’s proposal is “Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services,” which Cohn perceives as “Troubling.” I agree with this assumption and her reasoning. “The definition of ‘reasonable network management’ needs to be clarified and refined; not to mention, the language on what makes some network management ‘reasonable’ is extremely unclear.”

The fourth component is “’Lawful’ Content and Wireless Exclusions,” which Cohn has coined as a “failure.” “The proposal essentially ignores some of the key problems that EFF and others have had with previous network neutrality proposals. These loopholes could undermine the goals of neutrality, or lead to unanticipated and regrettable outcomes.”

In my opinion, this proposal cooked up by Google and Verizon has too many gray areas. Net neutrality is the attempt to regulate Internet discrimination, even though no discrimination currently exists. They are trying to implement rules where no rules are necessary. The author of this article, Cindy Cohn, is a supporter of net neutrality, but even she found several weak areas within the proposal. If these regulation are ever actually implemented the freedom of the Internet that we know today will no longer exist.

Are We Being Duped?

"Net Neutrality: A Buzzword that's Duping Us"
By Bob Sullivan
Published August 5, 2010

In this article Bob Sullivan addresses both sides of the net neutrality debate. He proposes the following two nightmare scenarios; the first is from the perspective of a net neutrality proponent, and the second is from the perspective of a net neutrality opponent.

“One day, you log on to the Web, and only 20 or 25 Web sites built by brand-name Net companies’ fire up quickly. Everything else—all the mom-and-pop sites, all the niche retailers, all the alternative blogs you read—dribble out onto your screen like it's 1996 all over again.”

“You log on to the Web after work, and nothing seems to be working. That's because the people living in the three other apartments in your building are busy downloading one pirated Blu-ray movie while watching another. Or spammers have taken control of your neighbors' machines and are pumping out millions of e-mails, totally clogging your Internet pipe. You call your ISP and complain. An operator there says, ‘Sorry, those pirates and spammers have just as much right to the network as you do’.”

Both of these scenarios I suppose have the potential to become reality, but I’m just not too sure which one would be more probable than the other. Bob Sullivan, it appears is in the same boat as I am. He really is skeptical of the big corporations occupying both sides of the argument, and this skepticism has enabled him to presents a very well-written, reality based article that attempts to considers the various implications of these dueling outcomes. While he remains hesitant to fully accept to implication of passing net neutrality into law, it is apparent that his tendency is to favor the side of a net neutrality proponent.

Mr. Sullivan perceives net neutrality to be an extremely important issue that is vastly misunderstood due to the sloganeering and extremism that have become prevalent within this argument. It is his belief that neither side of the net neutrality debate has the best interests of the American public in mind, and I have to agree with him. There is a lot of money at stake to be made, and because of this, Mr. Sullivan fears that companies will come to exploit the consumer even more than they have in the past.

Where I disagree with this author is in his statement that the real fight for net neutrality “should involve guaranteed minimum service levels;” to me that is just not America. In America, we are free to pursue any path to happiness that we choose, but this path is not going to be the same for everyone. Just because we are all born equal does not necessarily mean that we all deserve to have equal stuff; we deserve what we work for and what we earn. To me, this is what separate the United States from every other country in the world, and is why we have been able to experience true individual freedom. I do however agree with Mr. Sullivan that “the FCC is awful and ineffective at directly helping consumers.”

He concludes this article with a discussion of his distaste for aspects from both sides of the net neutrality argument. He fears that if the side of the opponents is allowed to win, “Google and Verizon will be allowed to make the telecommunications policies for the rest of the country,” but on the flip side, he has found that “some of the net neutrality proposals floated so far would actually make it harder for Internet service providers to filter out Internet traffic that degrades service, such as hacker attacks.” Neither of these choices is a viable option for the future of our Internet, and unfortunately, right now Mr. Sullivan is “afraid that this battle over buzzwords is distracting us from the real problem, and in essence, allowing companies an even easier way to take advantage of the consumers.”

The Big Question

"What is Net Neutrality?"

By Stephen Fontaine

Published December 1, 2010

Net Neutrality, short for network neutrality, is a political policy that is currently under debate within the forum of our United States Congress. In this article, the author makes it quite clear that he stands in full opposition of the enactment of this proposed legislation. Net neutrality is supposed to prevent against discrimination on the Internet, but according to Fontaine, “If the full scope of network neutrality were to pass, and become federal law, there would be a very good possibility that many, if not most Internet users would realize a considerable drop in performance along with a price increase.”

As of right now, the government has mostly stayed out of the Internet, which is why here is the United States we have the absolute freedom to use it as we wish. The proposition of net neutrality seems to be like a good idea on the surface, but when you actually consider its implementation within the span of reality, you can begin to see how and where there unintended consequences would likely occur.

“The major problem is that if the full net neutrality act is passed, service providers will not be allowed to sell tiered services, which means that those end users that require more bandwidth or priority bandwidth for their major applications will not be able to purchase the bandwidth priority for those applications. Currently there are programs, often through service providers to cover these requirements. Net neutrality legislation would eliminate that.” So while the individuals who use more bandwidth, such as people who download music and movies, are taking up the majority of network resources, the rest of us would be left to squeeze into the remaining bandwidth.

Permitting the authorization of this net neutrality legislation would lead to an unfavorable outcome for the bulk of Internet users here in the United States. Everyone would be subject to the same level of Internet service, which would thwart the need for a competitive market. Ultimately the overall quality of our Internet service would be diminished, as there would be no need to try to out-do a competitor to provide better service.

The significance of net neutrality is apparent, in that it would have a lasting effect on the lives of the vast majority of individuals living within the United States. Unfortunately, it continues to remain an issue that goes largely unnoticed by a greater portion of the public. And even when it is discussed, the argument has become so polarized that it is hard to get an accurate reading of what the heck net neutrality actually is. Almost everything written about has been derived from a perspective that is either in favor of one side issue or the other.

3 Sides of the Argument

Research Project Proposal

The Internet has changed our lives and how we view the world; never before have people in the United States and many places around the world been as free as they are right now to voice their opinions to the ears of a global public (if what they are saying anything of interest). Sadly however, throughout history, freedom (true freedom) has been the exception rather than the rule. America has been the exception, which is why so many of us take this freedom for granted, not realizing how easily it can be lost. Unfortunately, these freedoms that we’ve come to expect while using the Internet are being challenged all around the world, by governments who’ve never really perceived freedom to be an essential human right.

Net neutrality is a concept that is not new to the world, but rather it remains vastly unrecognized by the citizens of the United States, which is pretty regrettable considering the far-reaching implications it has for every Internet-user if it is to ever become enacted into law. It is most common that those who know of the concept either vehemently agree or vehemently disagree with it. From the perspective of those in support of this regulatory measure, net neutrality is the solution to an inevitable problem, but from the perspective of those in opposition to it; net neutrality is the beginning of a downward spiral, where regulations have been implemented where none have been needed. This heated debate caught my attention about a year ago and is the reason why I’ve chosen to dig deeper into the complexities of this concept known as net neutrality.

To gather my data, I have created a survey consisting of four multiple-choice questions, through the website, http://www.polleverywhere.com/my/polls. Each question was answered by thirty people, which was the maximum number of respondents permitted to answer free of charge. The main theme applied to all questions revolved around individual awareness and understanding of ‘net neutrality.’ My first question asks whether or not the participant agrees with censorship of the Internet, while my second question considers whether or not there should be a way to outlaw some things online? The third question asks the participant whether or not they are aware of the growing attempts to regulate the Internet, and my fourth question aims to learn what each participant thinks/knows about net neutrality. I will display this data through a website/blog (http://com5280netneutrality.blogspot.com/) that I’ve created to discuss the complexities which comprise net neutrality.

It is my greatest hope that through this process of intellectual exploration and in-depth research, that I might eventually reach a level of comprehensive clarity to where I can confidently explain the perspective of net neutrality I most personally identify with. Just by going off what I’ve learned thus far, I’m thinking that it will take a miraculous discovery to get me to believe that the implementation of net neutrality into law is anything but a degradation of our freedom. A world free from discrimination and inequality sounds great, but more than likely will never be attained because no human is perfect enough to achieve that utopian world so desired by many. The imperfection of human nature is the reason why I will forever be skeptical of the amount of power I allot to another individual with regards to regulating and controlling various different aspects of my life; and yes, this includes the Internet.