Search This Blog

Net Neutrality Essential for Online Freedom

Giant greedy telecom companies like Time Warner and Comcast want to control what you can access online. Without net neutrality, they could make a deal with a company like Walmart to keep you from accessing Amazon for example. 

Wireless companies want to force everyone to get data plans. Without net neutrality, the wireless companies can further conspire, price fix and cheat their customers by increasing the costs of mobile internet: they could also block you from accessing YouTube by making a special deal with the MPAA and RIAA.

These huge excessively wealthy telecom companies want to cheat the American people for more money by robbing our online freedom: the evil companies oppose net neutrality because they know if they can block it from becoming law it means more $ for them and less of everything for you and I.

Major honest companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Bing and Wikipedia support NetNeutrality because a free internet is essential to their business operations, a free market and fair online business competition. These companies are sticking up for your rights as a consumer so that the government will guaranteed with Net Neutrality laws that we can continue to enjoy a free and competitive market for Internet content.

Please support Net Neutrality, click read more to learn more about why it is important. 

Net Neutrality Explained

Network neutrality is a principle that advocates government regulation of Internet Service Providers, preventing ISPs from restricting consumers' access to networks that participate in the Internet.  Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication. Network owners can't interfere with content, applications, services, and devices of users' choice and remains open to all users and uses.
Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile (to your connection/ mobile phone) infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even block out competitors. (The term "net neutrality" didn't come into popular use until several years later, however.)

Net Neutrality is supported by consumer advocates, human rights organisation, online companies and some technology companies. Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality.

Yahoo!, Vonage, eBay, Amazon, IAC/InterActiveCorpMicrosoft, along with many other companies, have also taken a stance in support of neutrality regulation. Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies. According to Google:

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. —Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users

Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim Berners-LeeVinton CerfLawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesneySteve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Ben Scott, Marvin Ammori, David Reed, and US President Barack Obama.

Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.— FAQ

Envision Seattle and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund offer a model legal ordinance for communities and cities to enforce a free and open Internet.

Arguments for network neutrality

Supporters of network neutrality want a legal mandate ensuring that cable companies allow (ISPs) free access to cable lines, called a common carriage agreement, and the model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without court order. accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting "to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all". According to these companies want to "tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data ... to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video – while slowing down or blocking their competitors."

Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol (IP) and current Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, has supported efforts to introduce network neutrality legislation in the US, arguing that "the Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services." Cerf concluded that: Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. Vinton Cerf in testimony before Congress February 7, 2006

Digital rights and freedoms

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.
Competition and innovation

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies, often termed "content gatekeepers", the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create what Tim Wu calls an "unfair business model." Advocates warn that by charging "every Web site, from the smallest blogger to Google", network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay. According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to "carve off bandwidth" for their own television services and charge companies a toll for "priority" service.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services. Tim Wu argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market "where innovation rules to one where deal-making rules." argues that net neutrality creates an "even playing field" and that "the Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit."

Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use ... Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content.

Preserving Internet standards

Network neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer's designed flexibility.

Preventing pseudo-services

Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down.

End to End Principle

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end to end principle.

Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good.

Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network.

A new network "philosophy and architecture", is replacing the vision of an Intelligent Network. The vision is one in which the public communications network would be engineered for "always-on" use, not intermittence and scarcity. It would be engineered for intelligence at the end-user's device, not in the network. And the network would be engineered simply to "Deliver the Bits, Stupid", not for fancy network routing or "smart" number translation.... In the Stupid Network, the data would tell the network where it needs to go. (In contrast, in a circuit network, the network tells the data where to go.) In a Stupid Network, the data on it would be the boss.... End user devices would be free to behave flexibly because, in the Stupid Network the data is boss, bits are essentially free, and there is no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.

—David S. Isenberg The Rise of the Stupid Network.

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark argues that network intelligence doesn't relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale removal of "intelligence" from the network core.

The above statements and content were copied and adpated from the wikipedia page available at:

I was inspired to post this information by one of my favorite tech editors Nilay Patel from TheVerge. His article about this subject is Titled and Linked below  \/

Why I'm voting for Barack Obama

By Nilay Patel on 

There's only one choice if you work on the internet

1 comment: