djaburg

"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain today introduced legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet. The Commission will meet today to determine whether the historically open architecture and free flow of the Internet should be subject to onerous federal regulation. Specifically, the Commission will seek to impose “net neutrality” rules that would reign in the network management practices of all Internet service providers, including wireless phone companies.

This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market. Outside of health care, the technology industry is the nation’s fastest growing job market. Innovation and job growth in this sector of our economy is the key to America’s future prosperity. In 2008, while most industries were slashing jobs in the worst economy in nearly 30 years, high tech industries actually added over 77,000 good high-paying jobs. Just this month, Google and Yahoo both released positive earnings reports.

The wireless industry exploded over the past twenty years due to limited government regulation. Wireless carriers invested $100 billion in infrastructure and development over the past three years which has led to faster networks, more competitors in the marketplace and lower prices compared to any other country. Meanwhile, wired telephones and networks have become a slow dying breed as they are mired in state and Federal regulations, universal service contribution requirements and limitations on use.

“Today I’m pleased to introduce ‘The Internet Freedom Act of 2009’ that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” said Senator John McCain. “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment,” McCain continued. “Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy. "

HumanoidComplex

WOW, if that bill actually does what he says, then I'll promote McCain to slightly OK status. Usually when ever I see "Freedom", "Patriot", "Liberty", or "Golden Sunrise" in the title of a bill, my guard usually goes up; however, to be sure, I would have to read this bill to promote McCain to slightly OK.

interesting post burg

bry623

I wonder if this will work out as well as McCain-Feingold

linderman

should expect about the same results

djaburg

So nobody is concerned with the current administrations view on the internet and what they are hoping to achieve?

HumanoidComplex

I'm very concerned with our current admins view of the internet and what they are hoping to achieve. I appreciate McCain's attempt to do something about it; however, the internet as it stands now will eventually be transformed into something like the format of cable television, eventally. we might have to resort to fax machines like they did in Russia to fight their infowar.

Canaanabolaanan

As much as I appreciate your willingness to cite your material, and trust your source, there is a source I trust more. And it's ninjas. So let's take a different look at the topic:

YouTube - Ask A Ninja Special Delivery 4 "Net Neutrality"

And, as you could expect, John Stewart has his own take on it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...-to-neutrality

It's funny that the article claims the FCC is looking to "regulate the internet" by pushing for net neutrality. Because net neutrality is specifically an anti-regulatory measure. It's as much a regulatory measure as the first amendment is. It is indiscriminate with information it passes from one place to another. So the "onerous federal regulation" is actually seeking to preserve what we enjoy now.

lol @ gov't takeover of the internet. Now there's a serious application of that phrase. What half-a-brain wrote this? Whilst citing Google's and Yahoo's earnings reports, why didn't they mention that each of them support net neutrality? Seems like a double edged sword.

Acenator

I think the concern is that, by giving the FCC the power to say that people can't regulate the internet, they are also, theoretically giving the FCC the power to regulate the internet.

Now, admittedly, I don't see the FCC trying to regulate the internet any time soon, but with the way things have been going since the signing of the Constitution, you never know.

simpswr

Good heavens!!! They want the Fox Comedy Channel to regulate the internet?????

Canaanabolaanan

Well, you're right. I also think the constitution has too much power to regulate America. Something should be done. And what's the deal with cops? I propose anarchy.

Acenator

The Constitution is there to "regulate" the government and keep the government from infringing on the rights of the people. The FCC and many other government agencies are there to allow the government to regulate the people either directly or, by regulating certain groups engaging in specified activities, indirectly.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not against all regulation (we do need something in there to stop corruption and whatnot), but there are some things that the government needs to just stay away from altogether and, in my opinion, the internet is one of them.

Canaanabolaanan

Well, but that's sort of their job: http://www.answers.com/topic/federal...ons-commission

"(1) (Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, www.fcc.gov) The U.S. government agency that regulates interstate and international communications including wire, cable, radio, TV and satellite. The FCC was created under the U.S. Communications Act of 1934, and its board of commissioners is appointed by the president of the United States."

And the net neutrality "regulation" is to enforce non-regulation. I dunno. I guess I'm not sold on it one way or another, but it seems like the better option to me.

Chode

Seems like most of the discussion about "net neutrality" just falls out on party lines, but nobody discusses the underlying issues.

To make sense of it all, you need to understand the concept of a "common carrier". You can look at various definitions, but in essence, a "common carrier" is a company engaged in the public transportation of people and/or freight (this includes telecommunications companies as well), on a first come first served basis. A trucking company, for instance, has to treat a pound of roofing nails shipped by the Home Depot just like a pound of roofing nails shipped from Lowe's Home Improvements. Or a pound of roofing nails from Big John's Hardware in Puppy's Breath Montana. This has been the de facto standard for Internet traffic in most of the world since the creation of the 'Net.

In the U.S., this has started to change recently, since some Internet Service Providers would like to switch to a model that maximizes their profits, while providing a lower level of service to their customers. Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are a CableCo customer and you pay for a 10 Mbps connection. Well, why do you have a broadband connection? Would it be safe to say you got it because you want to use services that require a lot of bandwidth? I'm gonna guess that the answer is "yes". You want to listen to Internet Radio, watch Hulu, download movies from Netflix, whatever.

OK, so CableCo sees a business opportunity in selling preferential treatment to content providers. If you, as a customer of CableCo want to use a service that hasn't paid for premium bandwidth, than CableCo can arbitrarily cut the bandwidth for a service you want to use, even though they continue to charge you full price. In other words, you may be paying for a 10 Mbps connection, but only get Netflix at 5 Mbps. To add insult to injury, CableCo may not even tell you this is happening. But hey, if CableCo operates a competing service, what do you want to bet that bandwidth isn't restricted?

Look at it from the other end of the pipeline. Imagine you own the Google Empire. Wipe off the grin and pay attention! Now, lot's of people use Google Search, Google Apps, and YouTube. That's a lot of bandwidth! So you shell out big bucks for lots of servers and REALLY fat pipes. And the data flows like Niagara Falls.

Then, one day, CableCo contacts you and says, "You know, Bing doesn't tie up nearly as much of our bandwidth as you guys. We should be compensated. Otherwise, Google Searches might just take a bit longer to complete. Didja check out CloneTube's new site?" And if it works for CableCo, it can work for every large ISP that handles your traffic.

In this business model, the customer gets screwed, the content provider gets screwed, and only CableCo comes out ahead. CableCo has virtually no incentive to provide more bandwidth and better customer service because this model makes the most money by restricting bandwidth and charging content providers high prices for premium access.

Imagine you are a new company called, um, Hulu. You stream video and movies online, and your success depends not only on the content you offer, but the quality of the video. Now imagine you have to pay for "premium access" from several large ISPs. What does this do to your business model?

Here's the bottom line. Regulation is always risky and carries the potential for abuse. However, letting ISPs give content providers preferential treatment based on payments would achieve the exact opposite of what the "Internet Freedom Act" is supposed to accomplish.

ebackhus

You can't regulate something as big as the Internet. It's a GLOBAL network composed of every PC that's connected to some sort of a modem.

djaburg

But you can filter content. If you think they can't, look at what a good job China does.