Published: Thursday, Jan. 16 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
It is obvious from author of this editorial has no clue about what net
neutrality is, or the serious issues that arise because of this ruling. The author does not explain that this ruling rejecting net neutrality
allows internet provider to censor ANY content THEY deem objectionable, for any
reason they choose. Nothing stops them without net neutrality. See, they could
block this site if they chose. Or any blog, or ANY site at all. It's not just with the serious questions of freedom of speech involved
(what if a cable provided, such as comcast, decided to block all sites with a
conservative bent, or more insidiously, just drastically slow down those sites?
They can do that.), but, unlike the claims of this article, it could drastically
affect competition. For instance, a website (say Facebook) could pay the major
providers to block all competitors sites. As things stand now they can do that.
No law, or regulation stands in their way. No, this author(s) of
this editorial has really not thought this issue through.
"Net neutrality rules required broadband service providers to treat all
content the same. The FCC imposed these rules in 2010 under the worry that a
large and wealthy provider, such as Comcast, might begin either to manage
bandwidth in a way that would slow its competitors’ content and speed up
its own, or that it would begin charging premium prices for popular
content."But that is not the half of it. Without net neutrality
small business with small websites will not be as accessible as they have been,
both for content flow and search presence. This will stifle competition and
ensure the big guys get bigger, and the little guys get littler or disappear
altogether.To those who oppose government interference in markets,
consider that government often intervenes in markets to create competition, or
in other words to create a market which will self-regulate. This seems counter
intuitive, but that's just what the Carter and Reagan administrations did
in breaking up AT&T. Does anyone think that was a bad thing? It ignited
innovation and broke up monopoly. Your great god "market forces" would
never have done that.
Yes. The free market will take care of it. That's why the US has the best
medical care in the world.
If this ruling stands, I can see Comcast slowing down their competitor Netflix.
No doubt there would be other slowdowns. I really don't see how this could
help the consumer.
This was a helpful article to read in understanding the situation better.
I'm honestly not that interested in the status of "net neutrality",
so I'm not familiar much with its implications.
" a broadband provider now could offer greater protections from
objectionable content such as pornography, even if that content is otherwise
legal. "Are you kidding me? What made up world does this author
live in. Sure, Comcast or TWC could do this.... in fact that could do this now,
without the ruling. This ruling in now way enables this anymore than is
possible today. A la carte network channel subscriptions is possible today -
the ComCasts of the world choose not to enable that choice.On the
other hand, what is entirely more possible is that providers will be able to
create preferred partners - such as aligning with Google vs Yahoo, or the other
way around. And in doing so, restrict network bandwidth for those accessing
none preferred vendors. It is the same type of arrangements they
now have with the networks... some get hi-definition channels, some don't.
But if you think this is going to stem the tide of pornography on the web...
good grief you have a deeply misguided notion of what motivates the people who
run these networks.
In this country virtually all news and information sources are controlled by a
mere handful of multi-national conglomerates. On the internet, however, it is
possible to find small, independent sources. These could be conservative sites
like "The American Conservative" or liberal sites like "the American
Prospect". These are the types of sites I worry about. Even though they are
tiny, the Corporate Media will try to eliminate the competition, leaving us with
no independent news and views.
I do have to agree with many of the other comments on this editorial. The claim
that somehow striking down "net neutrality" is a blow for freedom and we
should all be cheering is so propostorous that I'm crying just a little bit
more than I am hysterically laughing. I am no expert on internet
regulation (and clearly neither is the Deseret News Editorial Board), but take a
minute to ponder how necessary internet access is now. It is just as important
as access to public roads, sewers, telephone lines, clean water, and nutritious
food. What if these "market forces" could dictate who we could talk to
on the phone? That, my friend, is Big Brother. And it isn't just the
government big brother we should be worrying about. It's also the large
company with specific "values" that they try to impose upon all of us.
If we don't have a referee limiting how these big companies can dictate how
we live our lives, we all lose out. Thank God there are people out there that
care more about fairness and the rule of law than "market forces."
Simply put, what you see or don't see on the internet will become dependent
on how much content providers are willing to spend. The behavior of the
internet, much like our government, will be bent to serve the interests of
wealthy corporations and individuals. Your opinions will be formed by the
information they choose to provide, and that situation suits them just fine.
Net neutrality is a really tough subject for myriad reasons. It is certainly
more complicated than this dumbed-down op-ed indicates. For starters, this
ruling doesn't auto-magically restore "market forces" to internet
service provider subscriptions. All ISP's are still delivering content
over a lot of infrastructure that they neither invested in, help maintain, or
own outright. And much of that infrastructure was -- or still is -- heavily
subsidized by public monies. In other words, market forces were not in place as
large telecoms got sweetheart deals to deliver content and market forces are
still not in place as they make use of that infrastructure to run their
business. So -- despite the fact that I agree with the op-ed on the wisdom and
helpfulness of potential "market forces" -- this ruling does not restore
market forces and seems quite likely to result in abuse by those telecoms lucky
enough to have navigated themselves into ipso-facto monopolistic positions of
power before it occurred. Consequently, I'm not a fan of unilaterally
striking down the reasonable "net neutrality" restrictions those telecos
have had to honor up to this point.
I have mixed feelings on this. Sure, I want providers to be able to
limit or eliminate porn.I am a streamer. I do not subscribe to Cable TV.
I have a Roku and Amazon Instant Video. Comcast is also my ISP. Comcast could
easily slow down my streaming for my Roku and to my computer.I want
net neutrality for some things but don't want it on others.I am
also a research engineer for Boeing. Years ago Boeing made air frames, jet
engines and operated an airline. The courts ruled that an air frame builder
could not also manufacture jet engines and that they could not operate an
airline. Pratt and Whitney and United Airlines were created as a result.Maybe an ISP should be limited to just being an ISP. Force Comcast to
separate their Internet and Cable businesses.
"NEW YORK (AP)--Will broadband providers start charging Internet services
such as Netflix to deliver the massive amounts of data that streaming video and
other content require?A court ruling this week gives providers such
as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon more flexibility to do that, even
though immediate changes are unlikely.Technically, providers have
always been allowed to charge Netflix, Google and others for priority treatment.
But the so-called net neutrality rules adopted by the FCC in 2010 discouraged
the practice, and any attempt to do it would likely have faced a challenge from
the agency.Services such as Netflix already pay their broadband
providers to send data from their systems. What's in question is whether
they'll also have to pay their subscribers' providers for delivery of
In this editorial the the claim is made that if specific sites are slowed down
that the market would solve the problem. Has anyone at the Deseret News
editorial board looked at who they can buy internet from? If you live along the
Wasatch Front you only have 2 or 3 options for speeds over 5gbs, and either no
or a large limit on bandwidth you can use. If you live in a UTOPIA city or Provo
you have the fiber optic option. For everyone else you really only have Comcast
or CenturyLink. Comcast has a netflix clone that they offer, and while it's
not offered in Utah, Century Link has internet based TV service called Prism.
Why would either of these companies provide the same speed access to their
direct competitors like YouTube or Netflix, without those companies paying a
high fee to the ISP? That's just one of many many reasons why net
neutrality is needed. In 2013 the internet is a virtual requirement for getting
things done. The internet is not an information service, it's a public
utility, and should be regulated as such.
The observation that consumers can pick another provider ignores a reality. I
have a choice of Centry Link with an available download speed of 1.5 MPS or
Comcast which starts at over 20 MPS and can be boosted higher for an increased
fee. Realistically, I am a slave to Comcast and whatever they want to charge
me. This potentially opens the door for Comcast to change my service and I
don't have another option.
To "mark" actually this is not a free speech issue. They can censor web
sites all they want. If you don't like it, then you are free to find an
alternate provider. If the Government was filtering web sites, then you would
have grounds to start calling this a free speech issue.To
"Noodlekaboodle" actually you have more options than just Comcast or
CenturyLink. There is also DIGIS or the cell phone companies make portable
hotspots that can provide highspeed access (depending on where you live).Net neutrality is not needed.
No, Redshirt, it is a free speech issue. The internet is not like
someone buying a hamburger and fries, where you can pick and choose where to
eat. The internet is an integral communication medium, not only in this country,
but world wide. The internet providers provide access to this communications
network. If the providers limit or deny access to people or entities based on
the providers corporate motivations they are censoring peoples access. The
example I provided is a legitimate issue. Comcast, the largest internet provider
in the nation, could deny access to a political party or group, and there would
be no recourse. That is censorship. And it is a free speech issue. It is the exact same thing as if ATT refused to let you make telephone calls,
or calls to certain numbers. AT&T is a private company. But it is not
allowed to do this because it is regulated. Just like the ISP's should be.
You are confusing the ISP's with the content providers. Content
providers, obviously can choose what to put on their websites.
To "mark" you are buying a service from the ISP. They can, and do
clearly state how their service works. As long as they state that they filter
some sites due to content, there is no free speech issue.For it to
be a free speech issue, they would have to be trying to silence you or have
those websites removed from their servers.As for their being no
recourse, you are wrong. If they blocked a political party or group that I
wanted to have access to I still have the recourse of going with an alternate
Redshirt.... are you seriously trying to tell us you can run your business via a
wireless hotspot? The net is much more than cruising facebook and reading the
DN. Some people actually do serious business over it and any restraint in trade
would be hugely damaging.The DN is clearly way out of their depth on
@RedshirtI hadn't actually heard of Digis, so I checked them out. But
the problem is that the direction my antenna would need to face is blocked by a
house, that and the fastest speeds they offer is only 15mpb, even if I could get
the service. There are three problem with the hot spots provided by cell phone
carriers, first is that the top speeds are only 10-12mpb, and I haven't
found one with a monthly data limit over 5gbs a month. If you just surf websites
and are a generally light internet user that's fine, but if you stream
video through Netflix or Hulu, or download files or communicate through Skype
you'll burn through your limit in less than a week, not to mention that if
you regularly upload files the upload speeds offered through those hotspots is
super slow. Even if you are able to get internet through smaller ISP for now
Comcast, Time Warner and Century Link are buying these companies up as fast as
they can get financing. Give it 5 years, it will be even worse than it is now.
Okay Redshirt, clearly you don't understand the issue. "For
it to be a free speech issue, they would have to be trying to silence you or
have those websites removed from their servers."Yes that is
EXACTLY what they could do, what they are allowed to do. Obviously you
don't realize that, but it IS what they are allowed to do. So yes, it IS a
free speech issue. They are absolutely allowed, because of a lack of
net neutrality, to silence people, they could block blogs, political sites, news
sites. That would silence them. They CAN have those websites removed from their
servers. Again, it is the exact same thing as if telephone carriers
were allowed to refuse people to make certain calls or receive certain calls.
But they are not allowed to do this. And saying that it's okay
because you can just change providers really misses the point. First of all as
others have shown there really are few realistic options. But more important, it
doesn't matter. This is far more basic. The internet is far too
fundamental, and influential, a communication medium to allow access to it to be
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments