Net Neutrality Debate

Hubbub editors engage in a lively debate on Net Neutrality.

KOStalwart: As usual, the federal government is trying to bully the little guy. This is huge!...I know, so are a lot of other things these days, but this is way up there right in the mix. And they're voting on it this week.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140850
http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

"Adam Green, MoveOn.org Civic Action"
wrote:

Dear MoveOn blogger,
The House of Representatives will soon vote on whether or not to preserve Internet freedom--and our fight to protect Network Neutrality is gaining huge momentum.

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition now has 524 member organizations, 637,386 petition signatures to Congress, 3,251 blog links, and 5,634 MySpace friends. We will only win this fight if the public is mobilized, Congress is bombarded from all angles, and word spreads around the Internet like prairie fire.

Here are some resources to help you blog today about the current threat to Internet freedom:
* MoveOn's blogger resource page is full of facts and links to help you inform people about Net Neutrality: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1771 ;
* MoveOn member Mari Fetzer designed a FANTASTIC image with links to 5 things people can do today to preserve Internet freedom. The coding is available at the bottom of: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1769
* Several fun videos are now on the SavetheInternet.com Coalition website, including a great Halo mimick on Net Neutrality: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1770
* Comedy site "Ask A Ninja" has a unique perspective on Net Neutrality: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1768

Please be sure to include a link to the petition in any posting, and use our blogger resource page to send us your post!

Also included on our blogger resource page is a comment box where you can share your ideas on how thousands of MoveOn blog owners and blog users can work together to maximize our effectiveness in the blogosphere. Your advice will be very valuable as we think about ways to empower MoveOn members to make waves in the blogosphere.

Thanks for all you do.

--Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org
Civic Action team, Thursday, May 11th, 2006


Response: Point #1
Slag: In my opinion, Net Neutrality is a smoke-screen for giant billionaire internet companies like Google and eBay.

KOStalwart: In fact, Net Neutrality has been a fundamental part of the Internet since its inception.

Slag: This may be true, but that doesn't make up for the fact that your stupid and of low moral character (Morrissey Rules of Debate [ROD] rule #1) .

Response: Point #2
Slag: Google, eBay and their insanely wealthy counterparts should pay a premium for prioritized traffic to their sites.

KOStalwart: Net Neutrality means that no web site's traffic has precedence over any other's. Yes, there are sites that make oodles of dough. I don't see how lobbying for bad legislation to make the telecom companies richer in the short term, while screwing information providers and information seekers, would solve that particular "problem".

Slag: Listen here, Snape, your wrong, admit it. (ROD #2).

Response: Point #3
Slag: These big wealthy internet companies are trying to pass off Net Neutrality as a freedom of speech or censorship issue, it's not, it's a commerce and free enterprise issue.

KOStalwart: It's the wealthy telecom companies that are trying to pass off Net Neutrality as something new and as anti-free enterprise. It's just a power play on their part.

Slag: Allowing telecoms to charge a premium for some net traffic would solve the AIDS crisis in Africa (ROD #3).

Response: Point #4
Slag: Net Neutrality disproportionately shifts the cost for the internet's maintenance and growth to the individual consumer and away from the those who profit most from it.

KOStalwart: Doing away with Net Neutrality would shift the cost to charities, nonprofits, advocacy groups, bloggers, startups, entrepeneurs, small businesses, etc. The individual consumer pays monthly fees; when the telecom and cable companies aren't making a reasonable profit they raise the price. Do you want large corporations deciding what you can access and how fast you can access different sites?

Slag: Why are you telling me this, I never mentioned Net Neutrality to you? (ROD #4).


Response: Point #5
Slag: And most importantly, you, or Goggle, are free at anytime buy your internet services from another provider if your not happy with their services or their fees. Competition and choice between AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Verizon, Quest and all the other telecoms (not to mention the cable companies) will weed out the bad providers and determine the best product for the consumer, just like it does in every other aspect of the economy. Free enterprise works if you let it.

KOStalwart: The best product for the consumer is ALL Internet information. That is what we now have (we also have free enterprise which will continue working if we don't let the telecoms and cable companies successfully lobby to change the current Net Neutrality system for only their own profit.) Less than being equally able to access all internet information would be censorship... and would be a worse product.

Slag: All the points you have raised are ridiculous and I refuse to comment further on the basis that it is a waste of my time (ROD #5).


Response: Point #6
Slag: Net Neutrality is a commie idea.

KOStalwart: If it's such a bad "commie" idea, how come nobody has complained about it before this recent massive lobbying effort by the giant telecom corporations to get rid of it? I only brought up this legislative agenda because we've started this blog thing together and figure we could help fight against censorship of ourselves.

This is from last week's NY Times editorial: "Net Neutrality keeps the Internet democratic.... One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like."

This is not a couple of bookstores on 5th Avenue. This is about at least partially blocking sections of the information superhighway. Snopes.com, which monitors various causes that circulate the Internet, calls it "the electronic equivalent of a paid carpool lane."

Slag: I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention, could you repeat that last part? (ROD #8).