The Save the Internet blog reports that Congress has dismissed Senator Ted Stevens’ anti-net neutrality bill. The bill would have been one of many bills aimed at giving massive telecommunications corporations the ability to charge extra fees to guarantee that certain websites operate faster than others. That is, some sites might be excessively slow on purpose so the telecommunications corporations can lure you into using their similar web service – also, internet service providers would introduce restrictive, tiered data plans based on bandwidth usage.
The end of this Congress — and death of Sen. Ted Stevens’ bad bill — gives us the chance to have a long overdue public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. This will not only include ensuring Net Neutrality, but making the Internet faster, more affordable and accessible.
Network Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception, ensuring that the service providers who control the “pipes†don’t interfere with content based on its ownership or source. “Net neutrality is just about fairness and a level playing field,†said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. “It’s that simple.â€
The Save the Internet coalition has collected more than 1.2 million signatures, including mine, for a petition supporting net neutrality. It’s a complex issue that many senators are still undeclared about so the battle for net neutrality is far from being over. I feel the telecoms should play no role in how the internet matures, rather they should simply focus on sending uninhibited data packets to and fro servers as fast as they reliably can. What’s your stance on net neutrality?
Tweet This
Stumble This
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
“we the people” must control the “pipes”
I think we should start our own union
More from author
We need net neutrality for the internet to be able to progress and develop as it has done since its inception.
Granting companies the right to prioritise packets and charge for this service would simply cut out the small guys and in the end, make the rich richer. The bill would only have been good for the elite. The internet is also a global network – it would have put way too much control (than there already is) into the hands of American companies.
More from author
I’d like net neutrality to stay and our internet bandwidth at least equivalent to the top ten most connected countries like South Korea and Japan. They not only get fiber optics for their lines, but their speed is higher and at a lower cost than what Americans pay. Seriously, U.S. telecommunications industry still owe us our fiber optics from all the tax breaks they’ve been receiving for years! And now they want to collect more money to build it? Show me the goods first!
More from author
Whoever came up with that bill is a dick. The internet should stay how it is, and I’m glad congress was smart enough to dismiss the bill. People are just too money hungry now-a-days.
More from author
I’m glad to hear that bill got tabled. Here’s to keeping the Internet open to anyone.
More from author
The telcos should stick to finding better ways to deliver our packets, and the Googles and Yahoo!s should stick to finding better ways to deliver our content. When was the last time you saw a good content site run by a telco?
More from author
Good post, Paul, though I doubt that any of your readers will anti-net neutrality.
I’m fortunate in that the Senator that my mom works for has been a big proponent for Net Neutrality and it has been good to see him push legislation for NN. I posted a really good video on this subject from a speech a few weeks ago: http://www.scottschnaars.com/?p=414
As one of the more technology saavy Senators (responsible for CAN-SPAM for example), it is nice to hear him discuss this as more than a series of tubes. More about his overall stance on NN can be found at http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/03022006_net_neutrality_bill.html
More from author