Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality

GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"

Comments

Article by Lawrence Lessig..

[dracken]

... In Washingtonpost. To quote the first few lines Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality."

Good question...

[GillBates0]

...and I used to find it a little confusing as well, till I read some of the documents on that link.

"Net Neutrality" is used to describe the notion that the network should be neutral and unbiased to all all traffic. That is, an ISP should not be partial towards or throttle traffic just because it may not be in their best interests to forward it.

As usual, the Wikipedia entry on Net Neutrality is pretty informative. The opening line reads: "Network neutrality is the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications." which sums up the issue pretty neatly.

Hence "Net Neutrality" is a _good_ thing, but it is confusing when people refer to the "Net Neutrality Bill" because what the bill actually proposes is the opposite, which often seems to be the case nowadays...kinda like Doublespeak.

Did you write your congressmen?

[Mark McGann]

Slashdot is a friendly crowd in terms of google's view that NetNeutrality is important.

So lets say your the one of those friendlies reading this posting. You're sitting there thinking to yourself yeah I like this idea of Net Neutrality, and I think congress should support Net Neutrality. Now ask yourself this, did your write your congressman? .

If your answer is yes stop reading this post now.

So why haven't you? Sure it'd be best to write a real letter, and bravo if you decide to do that. But if, like me, you're just too damned lazy, submit and electronic carbon copy one that's linked from the article. It's really not that hard, and these things really do work if enough people submit them. Just ask the Parents Television Council, the nice people who convinced the FCC to fine any broadcaster who doesn't conform to their censorship standards. They did that by setting up a nice simple website to send electronic complaints to the FCC with a few clicks.

Write your damned congressman!

-Mark

Re:Did you write your congressmen?

[oahazmatt]

I wrote my congressman.

Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
the opportunity to respond.

Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
(COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
groups are spreading.

H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
companies will be in direct competition with one another.

As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
company.

However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
"network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
when in fact their changes would be the first major government
regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
unlikely to use.

America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit

Re:What's the bill #?

[Odonian]

It's HR 5273. Here's the text of the bill, decide for yourself which way to vote I guess:

HR 5273