Nathan,

What do you think of the property rights argument? If Apple/AT&T own the intellectual property rights to a phone and the network that it uses why shouldn't they be able to prioritize some traffic? If you didn't like it couldn't you use a different product/service?

@Brian
As far as property rights go, I don't think companies like AT&T with Apple have any real claim. Apple made is money selling the phone, AT&T is making money by providing the service, both parties have made their money. My Acer desktop has no claim to the internet, it is simply a device I use to get there. If Acer started telling me how I was going to receive my internet I'd get a new machine. As far as networks go how would we address this situation: I am at home browsing the internet via Wi-Fi, my ISP is Verizon Fios, on my Iphone, service provided by AT&T. Who gets my money and priority to traffic my internet queries? What if they start making hardware (phones) that are incompatible with my home ISP. This situation would be a real mess.

Speaking to Nathans point and yours Brian, the internet needs to stay neutral. Does anyone think the way cell phone companies perform their business is fair? I would hazard a guess and say No. Lawsuits have been levied against most major Cell Phone providers for poor or unethical business practices, do we really want to give them the ability to control how we view the internet.

To simplify this, let us ask who is asking for more regulation on the internet? It isn't end users, so it must be corporations. What do consumers have to gain by allowing the end of net neutrality? No one has ever made that point clear to me, so it seems like we have nothing to gain. It appears as if the only victory to come out of this is the tons of potential cash ISP's stand to make. What we loose is a small portion of our virtual freedom, until end users start shouting on forums and blogs that: they want to be controlled, restricted, and to pay for services they aren't asking for, I think we should probably table this discussion.

I'd like the ISP's to slow down and even block access to pornographic sites. This would protect the internet infrastructure needed to speed up access to online news, social networking, and political sites.

Nathan: why should we all have slow internet access to protect online pornography?

@Brian - the internet should be treated like any other utility. If the water company could determine how we used our water, would it be fair for them to charge more for a bath, less for a glass of water? Or electricity companies - we pay one rate for lights, another for our television, and a different surcharge for using your microwave? All of this sounds preposterous but that is essentially the kind of micromanaged plans that the ISPs will begin trying to push. The more complex the rules get, the harder it will be for consumers to understand.

@David - I'm not sure if you are trolling but I will answer as though you are being serious. First, they would need to track everyone's browsing to determine what sites they are accessing.

Then someone or some group will have to determine what defines pornography. There are plenty of sites that sometimes have risqué images that are definitely not pornography. I don't trust the ISPs (or the FCC, or anyone else) to be able to make that determination.

Whether or not you agree with the above, there is a strong technical argument against this as well - any time there is a monitor implemented on a network, you will experience more slowdowns, because, by definition, each request must be monitored and checked against a list. This takes time. A lot more time than the hypothetical delay that you are experiencing from other people's internet usage habits.

To be honest, I'm not sure such a delay exists... do you have a source for that information? I'd be curious to read it.

I think it's convenient for Mr Wozniak to take a stance on the free Internet - considering he founded Apple Computer and is a millionaire many times over. Does Woz believe in free access to I-Phones for everyone? If not, why not?

@ Texas you think "it's convenient for Mr Wozniak to take a stance on the free Internet"

Why would he not have a stance on free internet? Considering who he is, he should probably have a very deep and well educated opinion on this subject. I am not sure what you mean by "Free access to I-Phones for everyone" Are you talking about the phone itself or the services provided by the phone? Which ever you are referring to I don't think it matters that much.

Should people get free I-phones? No, that is not how business works, Apple created a product we decide if want to buy it or not.

Should we get free service on our phones? No, but that has nothing to do with Apple. AT&T handles the service they set the associated fees for their service.

If anything Woz being in the position he is in, stands to make money from the end of Net Neutrality. The fact that he says it should be free is telling.

@Texas - I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so if I'm not answering your question please clarify your intent.

I don't think it is a matter of convenience - are you implying that Mr. Wozniak somehow makes money from Net Neutrality? If that is what you mean, please explain.

Although he no longer works for Apple nor has any say in it's operations (as far as I know), I'm sure Wozniak would be thrilled for everyone to have iPhones... I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "free access to iPhones" but I'm assuming you mean giving the phone away for free. I'm not following what a free phone might have to do with Net Neutrality.

I personally like having a fixed-price unlimited usage type of Internet DSL plan, and would be unhappy if my ISP tried to break my service into separate types of usage tiers and charge me differently for each tier. If that happened I'd either find another provider more to my liking, or else look carefully at the new pricing structure and determine that it still made sense to continue with that ISP based on my own usage patterns.

But what I am really not happy about is the prospect of more government regulation of the Internet. The Internet has thrived precisely because it has avoided most government regulations and restrictions and taxes and centralized planning. The theoretical problems being touted as the justification for "Net Neutrality" don't presently exist in any significant degree.

Of course the proponents of Net Neutrality say that we have to act now before the problems burgeon and become uncontrollable. But that argument can be used to justify any and all new government regulations -- just imagine potential problems and insist that the only way to avoid them is for government bureaucrats to establish rules to keep them from arising. And if the government regulatory "cure" should prove worse than the imaginary disease? Well, then we just need more new regulations to add on to the old regulations.

Has here ever been a case of regulatory proponents admitting that their prescription was wrong, and that their misguided rules should be abolished, and that the bureaucracy which administered those rules should be eliminated? Can anyone give me an example? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I have a lot more confidence that free market competition will minimize these problems than some federal bureaucracy. The free market has done pretty good since the Internet's inception, whereas government officials routinely screw so many things up.

Nathan,

Why do you think support for net neutrality is often divided by political party?

Dp,

Air pollution regulations, including banning leaded gas and requiring catalytic converters, helped clean up the air in Southern California.

International treaties limiting CFCs have dramatically helped the ozone layer.

Government action does help to solve problems.

Al Gore's re-inventing government initiative lowered both prices and paperwork. The Welfare Reform Act did address mistakes in previous regulations.

Government can work and it can change. No regulations wouldn't gave solved the ozone layer problem or cleaned up the air in Los Angeles.

Animals,

I didn't say that there were no instances of government doing something right; as the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I asked if there were any examples of proponents of government regulations admitting they were wrong and that their misguided rules should be abolished and the bureaucracy which administered those rules should be eliminated. I'm still waiting for an example.

The Welfare Reform Act certainly doesn't qualify, since it was pushed through Congress by opponents of the welfare system, not proponents. Even now it's hard to get hard-core proponents of welfare to admit that it improved things. And of course welfare hasn't disappeared, there are lots of (often misguided) regulations still in existence, and the bureaucracy certainly hasn't been eliminated. So I'm still waiting for an example.

Most of the time government not only fails to solve problems, it actively makes things worse and it does so at great expense to the taxpayers and to our individual liberties. When a private company makes a mistake, you at least have the choice of going to a competitor, or new competitors will arise to fill the void (if entry into the marketplace is not restricted by the government). But when government makes a mistake, you have no other choice; the government enforces its decisions at the point of a gun.

Government officials and bureaucrats have never demonstrated a great deal of competence at running the lives of everyone else. And I won't even bother delving into government corruption. In a free society, each of us should be left alone to make our own decisions (be they good or bad) and run our own lives as much as possible, so long as we refrain from harming others. In general, government should just butt out.

dpwiener,

I have read your bloggings in the past and I've enjoyed them tremendously; I also agree with much of what your saying now. I also think you would agree that sometimes the government does need to step in. For instance what if gay people wanted to get married. The could destroy the very foundation of the sanctity of married? I think you would agree that would threaten the very foundation of the institution of marriage. For instance what about the women on that show "The Ex-wives of Beverly Hills". I heard they are worried about what gay marriage might do to the prices of makeup, panty hose, silky underwear, and who knows what. Their alimony payments barely cover these things as it is. I think you know as well as I do these people have to be stopped. Don't tell Eric Ingenmunson but I also believe short people should be discouraged from marrying as well. I think they are responsible for airplane seats getting smaller and the downsizing of happy meals.

Brian Dennert doesn't agree with much of what I say and that's just fine. The bottom line is we're al fighting for a better America and we won't let Kayne West or anybody else hurt us like he hurt G.W. Bush.

Nobody,

While this is decidedly off topic, and I know you're being sarcastic, let me make clear that I believe the government should also butt out of marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual or polygamous or whatever. Marriage should be treated as a private secular or religious arrangement, while government's role should be restricted to adjudicating and enforcing civil contracts which individuals may enter into to deal with issues of finance and property and children.

Is it off-topic or is it hyper-topic? The internet is not as of yet being used exclusively by the ultra rich or the government as a way to control humanity. If Brian keeps calling things off-topic and keeps deleting who knows. For isn't the very heart of the topic government control over ideas and thought. What people see and what they are exposed to has a large effect of what they think, what they buy, how they vote, and who they are.

One day there will be a ultimate tipic and ultimate comment. Maybe it's already happend and it was deemed off topic and deleted gone forever.

There needs to be more of a sense of urgency. This is serious stuff. I know of a Simi Valley councilwoman who if she doesn't get her daily fix of Youtube kitten videos there very well could be wide sweeping implications for all of us.

Nate - My idea was to provide you an analogy, summed up through some irony to create a conundrum for you. I see that it worked.

@Brian: To be honest I don't know enough of each party's stance on the matter to comment. I didn't realize that this was an issue polarized by party at all - it seems very straightforward to me, telecoms charging more and closely tracking people's internet usage seems like something that could be considered "bad" nearly unilaterally. I guess if you are a telecom CEO it might be nice?

@Texas Tract: It seems as though you have little grasp of the issue, based on that analogy. I was being charitable in assuming you were making a valid point and giving you an opportunity clarify so that I could address it. The invitation to clarify still stands. And to be perfectly clear, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with giving away internet service, or phones, or anything else for that matter.

I do not believe there should be any restriction on public/residential internet connections period. If you are a business you should be able to block whatever site you don't want your employees going to. But for an ISP to block any site or search engine is ridiculous. I know China does this and maybe other communist or dictator run countries do to. I would never use an ISP that limited my access, period.

I also don not think you should be charged on fee regardless of what sites you visit. No to fee based access!

Phones are a bit different. You can not compare telephone sales to net neutrality. Most people don't know why this is but the cellular service companies (Sprint, Verizon, ATT) use different technologies to deliver and decode their signal. The phone companies make phones for the different technologies. Europe & Asia uses a different technology that is why you need a "world" phone when you leave the country. They have all the different technologies built into one phone.

A computer uses a worldwide accepted standard of communication. Any computer can get online anywhere it can plug in or get a wireless signal. That is why you will never see a computer company partner with an ISP for internet access.

I do not think the public would tolerate an ISP blocking a certain website or search engine to well. I would certainly not use that provider. I could see the government try to block certain type of sites due to the content (kiddie porn and such). That is easy to get around too.

I would also never vote for a candidate who supported any type of internet restriction or fee based access!

comment4,