That sounds like something only geeks could understand, I suppose, but hey, we're geeky enough to like using the Internet, so we can understand it, right?
Basically it means that the Net is open to all users/providers with no meaningful barriers to entry. From Save the Internet:
Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.
This isn’t just speculation -- we've already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Canada's version of AT&T -- Telus-- blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating. And Shaw, a major Canadian cable company, charges an extra $10 a month to subscribers who dare to use a competing Internet telephone service.
If you think this is a horrible idea, join the coalition of people and groups trying to persuade our representatives in Congress (map) that they shouldn't muck with this medium.
Posted by Linkmeister at April 24, 2006 09:50 AM | TrackBack//clipped from Dave Farber's IP and Declan McCullagh's Politech mailings//
In a nutshell, the concept of a network neutrality mandate is that all bits on the Internet must be treated identically, by law. It has become something of a hot-button because one of the telcos said some impolitic things that set off the conspiracy theorists and got the attention of Congress.
While "neutrality" sounds benign, the proposed legislation would give the FCC powers that it currently does not have. Be clear, *there is no neutrality legislation in place and we are doing just fine.*
More importantly, from a technical and economic perspective, I am a great supporter of innovation and experimentation and the free markets that enable them. A neutrality mandate would give the federal gov't regulatory powers to decide right and wrong at the router level.
You should not be surprised that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are those on the far left, including MyDD, MoveOn and Craig Newmark (lovely guy but hardened socialist). Their arguments are very much in line with things like McCain-Feingold and the old Fairness Doctrine.
It is also being sold as "fear the big bad corporations". I don't have any particular affection for any of the companies involved here, but I do know that customers know best.
Some customers might indeed say, I will pay more for better video. Alternatively, the market may say "we like it the way it is", which is neutrality de facto. In either case, we don't need Congress or the FCC to make the call.
The history of the Internet has taught us we should imagine the unimagined.
Let's preserve the absence of inhibition that has gotten us this far. Keep it libertarian. No new laws.
(Put another way: think about what the FCC has done in the name of "decency". Now expand it to private bits on private networks. That's
"neutrality".)
What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine? Without it, we've got Clear Channel refusing air time to the Dixie Chicks while sponsoring pro-war rallies.
MyDD and MoveOn are hardly "far left;" "far left" is ANSWER and the American Communist party.
I don't trust libertarians anymore. They're essentially pro-Republican, and after five years plus of that misrule I'll pass.
Posted by: Linkmeister at April 25, 2006 08:45 PM