Where the Candidates Stand On Net Neutrality

nmpost writes "Net neutrality is one of the biggest issues with regard to the internet today. At the heart of the issues is how much control ISPs will be allowed to have over their networks. Each candidate has come out with a strong position on the matter, and whoever wins will have a drastic effect on the future of the internet. Barack Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality. Under his watch, the FCC has implemented net neutrality rules. These restrictions did not apply to wireless networks, though; a gaping loophole that will be problematic in the future, as mobile internet is exploding in popularity. Until it is addressed, Obama can only be given a barely passing grade with regard to net neutrality. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has come down on the other side of the issue. The former Massachusetts governor strongly opposes net neutrality. According to Politico, Romney believes net neutrality will restrict ISPs, and that they alone should govern their networks. The governor has stated that he wants as little regulation of the internet as possible."

Comments

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

He's anti, though he claims to be "pro freedom." In actuality all that means is that he opposes regulation.

Just turned in a term paper on Net Neutrality.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means?
I have seen no evidence that any of them do.

I just turned in a term paper on Network Neutrality issues and regulatory approaches to them.

One thing I discovered was that Obama (or at least his relevant policy wonk and/or speechwriter) was quite aware of the issues and was coming down strongly on the side of regulating to prevent entertainment/ISP conglomerate oligopolists from using their control of the pipes to strangle their content and services competition and shaft their customers.

Which may not be the right approach. But they did seem to be QUITE up on things.

Relevant Obama quote, from a June 8 2006 podcast:

The topic today is net neutrality. The Internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers ... I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with Internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes. So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the Internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.

Re:The way it changes is, fight from below

[fustakrakich]

The only way to fight these local municipalities is, well, locally.

You mean like we did so successfully with school segregation? And Jim Crow? And Voting Rights? Yeah, the locals were real good on that.. When the locals start acting like a bunch of gangsters, sometimes you have to call in the cavalry.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean

[WaywardGeek]

No, go read up. Obama understands and promotes net neutrality, which has happened under his administration through very reasonable FCC rulings. Romney has stated his anti-net-neutrality position, though like most topics, we don't really know what he knows or thinks about this issue. Ryan, on the other hand, has co-sponsored every piece of anti-net-neutrality legislation written for the GOP by AT&T and friends. He clearly understands the issues, and sides with the internet toll trolls.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean

[dgatwood]

1. A church can't offer free wifi at church, but block porn sites which you shouldn't be viewing while in church

Wrong. A church is not an ISP, nor is a business who is allowing you to use their Internet connection for free, nor a library, nor any other person or entity that isn't charging you for use of the service. These rules do not apply to them.

2. Companies can't offer tiered access plans. 1 Mb for $20/month, 10 Mb for $30/month, etc, etc

Wrong again. The actual rules are fairly straightforward and easy to understand. The first rule is that the company must be transparent about its network management policies. The second is that it may not block anything, and the third is that it may not give anyone preferential treatment. None of these things prevent a company from cutting off your service when your contracted coverage runs out.

3. A company can't offer network access that only allows you access to their sites, such as Apple allowing access to the genius scheduling area of their website. Instead, people in all the local stores could piggy-back on Apple's wifi for their internet access rather than paying for it themselves.

See also #1.

There are ways of preventing AT&T/Comcast, etc from censoring the internet- they're called competitors. I understand where the net-neutrality rules come from- I really hate the idea that a service provider would this to me.

Ah, now we get to the point—the magic libertarian theory that competition will somehow fix censorship. Here's the reality:

• People don't want companies digging up their land every three months to run a cable for a new competitor, so they pass laws limiting the number of utilities with public utility franchise laws.
• People want their cell phone calls to go through. This means that you have to have regulation over the cell phone spectrum because it is a scarce resource.
• Even if we could somehow change the laws about the first two without hopelessly breaking things, the tremendous overhead of setting up a new service, coupled with the near-complete lack of overhead faced by the incumbent provider, means that it is almost never financially viable to do so.
• The libertarians aren't willing to do what is necessary to fix these problems—creating government-run nonprofit corporations that license access to a single set of cellular towers or underground cables—because that would be government interference.

Instead, I offer a competing proposal- information. If you required ISPs to declare what filtering they are doing so that people would know what's going on, then they can put pressure back on those companies or find alternative companies.

What an amazing coincidence. That's the first of the three FCC net neutrality rules. Unfortunately, information doesn't help when you're outside DSL range. In most places, your only remaining options are cable (from a single cable company) or a dedicated trunk line. You cannot usefully have a free market when the cost of infrastructure is so high that the market naturally degrades to a monopoly. So you have two choices: liberate all the telephone, cable, and fiber lines and lease them back to any ISP for a line rental fee plus the cost of running a trunk line and dropping a router into the government-owned central office, or regulate the commercial entities so that they cannot screw the customers. Those really are the only two options that can actually work.