Net Neutrality Stays

Some governments, such as those of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet, especially political and religious content. This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention.

Internet Neutrality is essential to the underlying concepts and approaches to the network as a whole. This does not mean, for example, that only websites that pay more to various companies which act as ISPs should gain favor over others who are less suited to do so. This is outright favoritism at it's worst, and puts the United States in league with countries such as mentioned above - Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia.

Are we to believe that with a mere stroke of a pen, the very ideals of the open access Internet are to be brushed aside and locked behind tiered and costly schemes? Are we to sleep well at night knowing that the deconstruction of what was once designed to be open and free is under constant fire by profiteering gluttons in mega-corporations?

Honestly, as a business man myself, I completely understand the concerns of major ISPs with persons using more bandwidth than the ISPs originally expected. But this is just a fact of life - end of story. When I signed up for my Internet Service, I was shown in the agreement that I am allowed to use 1.5 Mb/sec and have access to the Internet. In that they [the ISPs] are crying for deep regulation on account of the bandwidth being costly - well, they should have thought of that before offering their customers more bandwidth than they actually could afford to.

Nowhere does it say that "speed is dependant on whether the ISP approves of it's use, or is anything other than our list of preapproved sites as listed on our company website".

As a consumer, I have entered into a contract for Internet access at broadband capacity, without content strings attached. My agreement states what the speed of my connection is allotted, so whose fault is it that people are no longer merely checking email and looking up the weather?

The Broadband companies are offering us a connection speed for a set price per month, and we are happily paying for the service. In that a growing majority of users are now actually using their bandwidth as they are paying for by watching online video, or using file trading for large files is none of the ISPs concern (unless they are breaking the law, in which case they should intervene). Such technologies as Bittorrent and P2P are not illegal inherently and a large portion of it's traffic is indeed legal. Such technologies are not outright illegal to use no more than the Internet itself would be illegal as a whole to use simply because it hosts illegal files someplace in another country.

Allowing tiered internet access will not do anything to belay increasing bandwidth usage from media rich websites or file applications. We both know that technologies can be pumped out just as quickly as can be shut down to circumvent these practices - if Bittorrent is filtered and restricted by the ISPs, there are plenty of options which exist - BrightNet systems are already waiting for a launch via open source communities which would make the dismantling of Net Neutrality a moot point, and completely shatter the ISPs hopes at being a "gatekeeper of the internet" as they would like.

This is not a threat, but a fact of the information age. When one thing gets dismantled by corporations trying to squeeze for more control, thousands of alternatives pop up to take it's place. When Napster was sued into bankruptcy, thousands of P2P systems sprang up in its' wake to take its' place.

What shall we do if we silence the thousands of existing P2P systems? Will we feel better when bigger and better systems take their place to circumvent the ISPs? Will this be justified if a complete BrightNet system is released for use in the wake of Bittorrent?

If a BrightNet system were to be released to the public, the ISPs would be utterly helpless to restrict it, as would the RIAA, MPAA and others. In a BrightNet, no copyrights are ever broken, but the files still manage to assemble from random data. Random data that looks like static to any ISP.

Our cable or DSL modems are not capable of exceeding the preset bandwidth we are allotted, so we are not breaking our contract if we use our bandwidth - the very same bandwidth we paid for.

Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.

This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.

If it will not end the open internet, at the very least it will serve to destroy the very companies and ISPs who look to control it. This course of action must be stopped before it escalates into something the ISPs cannot back out of...