Thanks Jane for the notice. I had no idea people were even considering it.

Off to write some letters…

So, would this ‘go to the front of the line’ money be paid individually to the giant ISP’s? And, if so, what happens to people who aren’t doing business with the giant ISP’s? … Would we be at a disadvantage because of that?

My understanding would be that your small ISP would have to have an agreement with the Big ISP to give you speedy access. The question is, would your small ISP be able to afford the fees the Big ISP charges. They would if they pass on the cost to you, which I imagine is what will happen as has happened in the cable TV industry.

The better question to ask is…would your access be limited because of who your ISP is and their content filters. An extreme example is something like your small ISP is owned by someone the large ISP considers a radical fringe group (Marxist, Muslim, Overzealous erotic romance writers *grin*), the large ISP could possibly refuse to sell to your small ISP or make it cost-prohibitive for the small ISP.

Thank you Jane for such a clear and concise discussion of the issue.

Don’t get me wrong, like I said before, I do believe in net neutrality. I’m just finding it hard to justify why this case, the internet, is so much more special than all the others: roads, education, healthcare, etc….

For me the answer to that would be…the Internet is more special because it is a forum for a fundamental right – freedom of speech – that can easily be limited or restricted by a minority. Shut down the forum and you shut down people’s ability to promote change.

Without freedom of speech, we jeopardize our ability to be advocates for change to roads, education, healthcare, etc., none of which are fundamental rights, but benefits of the freedoms we enjoy.

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
Salman Rushdie (1948-?) Anglo-Indian novelist.

Corporate owned media outlets, from radio to tv, have been known to kill stories and ads based on content, etc. There was recently a case where a cellphone company (Verizon? Comcast?) blocked political text messages based on their content. Keeping the net neutral is about all those issues you mention.

The reason net neutrality has traction now is that telcos are proposing something that could slow things down. If telcos changed their argument and guaranteed the present speed for all traffic but any future lines or improvements would be dedicated to customers/consumers who were willing to pay more, the argument suffers a bit. As a society we accept the notion of paying more for better service. We’re only upset because it feels like we’d be paying the same but getting worse service. Its psychologically not as upsetting to think of getting the same service as we do now but some people paying more to be lifted higher. But the end result is the same, tiers to separate the haves and the have nots.

Don’t get me wrong, like I said before, I do believe in net neutrality. I’m just finding it hard to justify why this case, the internet, is so much more special than all the others: roads, education, healthcare, etc….

Still a bit baffled. Who gets to decide whether this happens? And how does it work internationally? Would all countries sign up to this, or would it only affect the US?

The FCC is the regulating body that the large telecomm companies are lobbying with to make this change. The FCC’s decision will determine whether telecoms can create this Brave New World for us that they say will be better for us. At SaveTheInternet.com, they have a standard email letter you can send to your specific legislators. However, a hard copy generally carries more weight with the Senators and Representatives. Phone calls are even more powerful, because you’re pointing out that this issue is so important to you that you took the time to dial.

As has been previously stated, there is unlit fiber to access. The question is why not light it up now? My cynical nature says the telecoms know this would hamper their efforts to eliminate net neutrality. Bandwidth has been an issue for years. I have no problem with telecoms either laying new cable or using the unlit fiber and opening it up for faster speed that I pay a higher price for as it would be MY choice. Even then I do not want these companies having access to the data in the pipes.

* In the US, you have a car (your computer)

* You fill your car with gas (monthly gas bill to a telecom for Internet access)

* You drive on free roads, which is the transportation infrastructure we built with tax dollars. Amazingly, the Internet infrastructure was built with a lot of tax breaks to ISPs and yet all the public can do is regulate it.

* In the US you have unfettered access to just about anywhere you want to drive from city to county, across state boundaries. Although people are stopped and ID’d for access to and from Canada and Mexico, we’re not charged a fee to enter or leave the country that I’m aware of.

* There are the occasional toll roads (user fees) you encounter when you travel in your car. On the Internet compare those user fees to subscription fees you pay organizations like Romantic Times or RWA to access special content.

If net neutrality vanishes, you will still pay gas for your car (Internet access) BUT …

your computer (car) will be told by your ISP what Internet highway lane you can ride on, what you can do with your data (music downloads, vendors you visit, and exercising your freedom of speech) all because the telecoms (ISPs) WILL control the data flow in the pipe.

Paying for infrastructure is one thing. Data flow is completely different. Flourishing grassroots movements on the Internet will suffer serious setbacks if net neutrality vanishes. Our ability to protest and spread the word quickly will be severely hampered if not restricted completely. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen.

No matter how you slice it, this is a LOT of power to give to just a few corporations, and WAY too much power to give any government.

Charlene’s hint to go to Savetheinternet.com is a great one.

When there, you can sign up for their email updates. I’ve been on that list for months, and they alert you when some vote is coming up and make it really easy to email your representatives. I get something from them maybe once a month, so it’s not overwhelming or anything, but SO important.

It’s ALL about the money, and the free market is a myth (notice how all the telcos are merging, and our government doesn’t even blink). Most Americans have a choice between one or two huge corporate providers.

This big companies own the fibers (actually, much of that fiber was paid for with public monies, then given to the telcos with the biggest lobbiests, but I digress). More importantly, these companies control the easements and routes to lay new fiber, and they’re NOT letting any new players in the game, so don’t expect high prices to suddenly spawn a wave of competitive small companies. . . unless wireless really takes off, which would level the playing field a little.

Break net neutrality and you’ve given them cart blanche to set the price for internet access at whatever their greedy, monopolistic, black hearts desire, and we’ll have no choice but to pay it or go back to the stone age.

Thanks for the Charlie Stross article, Robin. Very interesting.

At this very moment in time there is so much “unlit” optical fiber sitting under the ground in the USA that we are probably talking about a ballpark figure of around a thousand times more bandwidth available if we were to light it. Remember the big tech bubble back in the late nineties? The big telecoms like Nortel, Cisco and Lucent were predicting that bandwidth useage would keep growing exponentially, and as a result, backbone fibers were being laid at a rate to “keep up” with this growth. Only the growth didn’t occur. And the tech bubble burst. So the fiber was never lit, but it still all sits there buried under the ground waiting for us to turn it on.

Here’s a good summary article from early 2001 – a few months before the bubble burst. Remember that technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since this article was written and we can now get even more usable bandwidth out of a given fiber than was assumed when this article was written. Link.

There’s a lot of debate about how much of it could be lit, as it’s basically sat idle without maintenance for a good ten years, but experts agree that, at the very least, a metric shitload of it would light up fine. So the major infrastructure costs of increasing bandwidth have already been dealt with at least ten years ago – all that we are left with are the costs of lighting it up and using it.

So arguments that little Jimmy needs his youtube slowed down to allow enough bandwidth to remain for Dr Bigshot are totally bogus. This is purely an issue of the telecoms not wanting to bear the costs of doing business. The government should leave this alone for the markets to solve. Those that want the customers will open up their idle bandwidth and those that don’t will go under.

I would be extremely upset if I paid for the highest speed, but still had to download things at dialup speed because the place I wanted to download from could only afford the slowest speed. What good is that?

Here’s another idea: instead of cramming 1,000 people onto one tower, put more out there. A provider’s inability to keep up with demand for information access should not impede on my ability to access that information.

Thanks to you, I’ll keep an eye on this issue.

I’ve written the letters to congressman and senator and signed petitions. Is there anything else anyone can think of?