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 the ONLY candidate worth mentioning. Obama and Romney are the same agenda with nothing but little wedge issues that keep people polarized to their candidate of choice. Since it's unlikely he will get the nomination, Former Governor Gary Johnson is right there with his views on 99.9% of things. IMO, unless you vote Libertarian, it doesn't matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican. Both are big government and anti-liberty.

Only regulations create monopolies

[SuperKendall]

And granting them monopolies takes away our rights

That is bullshit on ten thousand levels.

With any company, you are free not to use their services.

Well that us UNLESS regulations say that company has no competition, which is why usually you have but one choice for cable internet...

If companies are free to compete, you have a lot of choices for ISPs.

Meanwhile, if you allow network neutrality to pass say goodbye to choice of ISPs mattering, because all ISPs will have the same regulations regarding blocking addresses, logging IP access, so on and so forth.

Net neutrality would be a given in a truly competitive business environment.

Although I don't think you meant to say that you are exactly correct. So instead of fighting FOR limitations on the few ISP's you can choose, how about fighting for the right to have more ISPs as competition?

And that is best

[SuperKendall]

For a business, "properly manage a network" only means "whatever makes us the most money."

Which is why ISP's do not block content today, because it's far easier just to allow you to access whatever.

With net neutrality ISPs will be REQUIRED to shape network access according to current regulation. With mandated equipment to do so in place, THEN ISP's will use those tools to reduce network traffic in ways they do not bother today. Today no torrent traffic is blocked, in a post-network neutrality world you can kiss it goodbye (and your attempt will be logged).

You simply are not thinking through what happens when the government makes companies put in place extra equipment to control network flow.

Here's how it works.

[mosb1000]

It's a way to get their foot in the door. They will either make a new agency, or expand the FCC to essentially police the internet. You'll need someone to check up on ISPs to make sure they're staying neutral, and a bunch of new regulations that define exactly what neutral is. ISPs will probably need a license to operate which can be revoked in the event an ISP is found not to be neutral. From there, they can probably add new regulations to prevent sharing copyrighted materials without even passing new legislation. Since its already illegal, all they'd need to do is expand the meaning of net neutrality as necessary.

And net-neutrality advocates really need to get real about this. The Internet is moving away from preferred content, not toward it, and users would perceive blocked content as "broken links." Customers would have a shit fit, and probably sue their ISP for false advertising if that happened (not to mention the Feds could bring antitrust charges). Net neutrality legislation is an unnecessary opportunity for the government to break the Internet. Don't fall for it.

Re:We must bear this election stupidness.

[friedmud]

Very well said. This is how I feel on a daily basis. But what in the world to do about it?

I truly believe that there is just no hope.

The self-interest that has set itself into the people of this country will be our ultimate undoing. As people clamor for the government to give _them_ more everyone will turn a blind eye toward what would actually be good for the _whole country_.

50% of people don't pay taxes any more. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this group of non-taxpaying citizens can just continue to vote themselves "more" until the whole thing collapses in on itself.

My only hope: That it doesn't happen in my lifetime....

Thanks for putting together a truly thoughtful and well written post on this subject!

Re:Two can play

[Teun]

These are not different networks, they are al IP.
Of course even under NN rules there is a possibility for an ISP to allot a certain part of their bandwidth for extra services like IPTV or VOIP, it's for a reason called Triple Play.
But they should not be allowed to restrict the use of other, possibly competing, TV or phone services on the part reserved for internet.

NN is about opening up, not about restricting.