|
|
Fixed ISPs should not be allowed to charge based on usage, only on speed. Usage based ISPs only hinder internet company growth and technological progress. They create fear in the user that they might "overuse" their internet or do something that may cause their bill to rise. Unlimited internet providers, on the other hand, offer freedom, and the opportunity for capitalism to reign over the net.
|
|
|
I read this disturbing article the other day:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14934
Time Warner, Embarq Fight to Outlaw 100 Mbps Community Broadband in Wilson, NC
It reminds me of what Verizon did in PA when they got the legislature there to prohibit public WIFI networks from being built.
The FCC should make sure laws like these are squashed.
|
|
|
McChesney went on to explain:
"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet."
|
|
|
I hate to pull an Andy Rooney on this, but I just have to pose a few questions in this hot debate because the answers seem just so obvious. As it is today, we have more choices on wireless voice and data at lower prices than the rest of the world. Does that sound like a bad thing?
The current environment has the biggest competitors competing as fiercely as ever and has equipment manufacturers in a rush to try and get better, more innovative devices to consumers at $200 or less. Does that sound like we need a lot of additional harmful regulation from government?
The wireless companies now offer users the ability to watch live events on their wireless devices and provides a great experience for users 98%+ of time regardless of what map your tied to. We are getting a lot of our wants, not needs, met by this industry. Don't mess that up by thinking the government can better regulate their networks than the experts that have been pushing the utilization of bandwidth through each evolution of technology. When was the last time you thanked the government for all the things they have supported or developed to make your life easier? Sub-prime loans?
Net Neutrality as proposed will stop private investment in further broadband network expansion. That will cost jobs, and hurt our economy at such a critical time. Is that good for America?
The government has not had the best track record on interfering in other industries, don't burden an industry that actually has its collective act together. All the wireless competitors are focused on the customer experience in the highly competitive market for subscribers. Consumers have choices, and prices have consistently come down over time while coverage, speeds and devices have done nothing but improve. Isn't getting better for less what every consumer always wants? This industry is already doing that, so please ask the FCC to not bring the innovation to a halt with unnecessary and harmful government regulations.
|
|
|
...fill in the blank:
The World Wide Web
YouTube
Google
Blogs
LOLCats
...etc. John McCain should learn to use Google before he starts telling the rest of us how the internet should be structured.
|
|
|
Note to the White House and the FCC:
Get away from our access to the Internet. We will lose our ability for open discussion if the you, the government controls, it. This is clearly one of your attempts to control your influence over media.
|
|
|
"An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications." Bureaucrats, stay out of business - internet or otherwise - because you have shown your complete incompetence in every area you've forced your way into uninvited. We have enough tyranny from our current administration already. We should treat our czars (internet and all the rest) just like Russia sensibly did theirs. That's my 2 cents.
|
|
|
The internet should remain an open system accessible by all and controlled by no-one. It should be accessible by all in both directions—both to consumers of content and to content providers. The internet should not become the property only of those with the financial resources or political power to inflict their will and viewpoint on others. The internet is too critical to our freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and our economy to let it be controlled by any entity or entities. The internet really has become our last bastion of freedom as well as our best means of economic recovery and stability. Don’t let that change. Keep the internet open for everyone. No censorship and No blocking. People should only be able to censor and block internet access for themselves and their families. There should be no other form of censorship
|
|
|
The Big Brother of "1984" hasn't quite come to pass, but the ownership and control of most popular media by megacorporations is a huge leap in that direction. The only obvious and wildly successful alternative to the self-serving version of news and current affairs we are being fed is the Internet, where everyone has equal access to send and receive information not vetted by the corporations. If you take away that equal access by allowing these same corporations to charge fees for it, you have killed the only hope we have for truly free speech. And if you do that, it will be clear that you are very simply in the pockets of those corporations. There is no other reason to ignore the common sense of enforcing Net Neutrality. We are not stupid out here. Government is supposed to work for the people, not for the money. Start doing your job.
|
|
|
It is absolutely necessary . . . absolutely essential . . . to be extremely wary of them BOTH!
|
|
|
this so such a basic right that it still astounds me that there is a debate. Access to public information it not a commodity that can be bought and sold...PERIOD.
|
|
|
why do we pay for cablevision which has paid commercials, infomercials, and any other mercial you can think of?
|
|
|
If I were a Medical Doctor performing surgery on a patient with a very rare complicated problem and needed technical advice from another Doctor who happened to live in some small town in Russia, I should not have my request nor should he have his reply to my question held up by my ISP because Bank of America paid more for a priority line to transfer their data on. No corprate entity should ever be given the power to determine who or what has priority. The internet must be free and open.
|
|
|
Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
This is written to express our concern about the FCC’s upcoming announcement on network neutrality. Heavily regulating wireless networks will reduce the investment in Michigan and cut into job growth – two issues very important to Saginaw Future.
The rapid rise of the wireless market has been a great success story for Michigan. Nearly all residents and businesses have access to advanced wireless phones and networks, while the strong, competitive market keeps bringing new innovation. The key reason for this success is that the government has really let the market work and has not provided burdensome regulations. We believe that the FCC should retain the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that has built the robust wireless and online networks we have today.
The FCC can take another step by avoiding network neutrality regulation of broadband deployment. Bringing broadband to all areas of the nation also requires investment in networks, well-paying local jobs and the technology needed for our cities and towns to grow new businesses that depend on communications.
I think we all agree that a fair and open Internet is important, but the proposed regulations on traditional and wireless broadband service will shut off the Internet to many constituents in my state and further cost us jobs and investment. Please don’t close the door to opportunity and jobs for people in Michigan with unnecessary new regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
JoAnn Crary
President
|
|
|
It ain't broke - please don't fix it!!
|
|
|
Free Internet is one of the last sources of real, raw open communication that the people have left. It's become essential not only in our daily lives on a personal/leisure level, but for brick-and-mortar comapanies, media outlets, and for individual start-ups. For writers to find an audience for their voice, for critics to express their distaste or fondness of a film/book/etc., and for family to catch up & keep in contact. What would we do without these platforms that enhance our lives? Any step taken to limit our accessibility would simply be a step backwards.
The internet has become a global commons. A place where anyone and everyone is allowed access & where no person or state make take ownership or take control.
So many other aspects of life have already become privatized; things that we need access to or are required to have like auto insurance. Water. Electricity. The most obvious example is health care. Privatization of health care has not benefited the majority of American citizens and neither will the privatization of the internet.
Americans need to put their foot down and refuse that this happen. We don't need corporations like ISPs controlling yet another part of our lives.
Censorship should never be accepted and will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Keep the government out of the Internet. It's already free, open, and competitive. There is no reason whatsoever for our tax dollars to get anywhere near this very successful societal tool.
|
|
|
It is my proposal that the ISPs are required to submit to a regulatory committee the same information regarding the management practices and this committee is responsible for validating the claims. This would entail site visits and regulatory checks on the ISPs to ensure the companies are complying with their own management practices. I further propose this committee have a forum for users to place accusations and investigations of similar accusations. The FCC’s responsibility should be regulate the openness provide by the ISPs and not the Internet itself. FCC should create a means for the organizations to communicate their practices in a standard format. There should be active verification that the policies are fair. These policies should be published as it is in this case where the openness of the internet is offered for public forum. If there are policies in place for an ISP that infringes user’s rights, there should be a means for that user to gain protection by the FCC against the ISP. Violators of their own policy should be held to fines and required to immediately fix the problem and validated by the FCC. The FCC should ACTIVELY protect the users.
|
|
|
The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country's communications systems.
Net neutrality sounds simple--force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way--until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work. But the government is working to do just the opposite.
These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty whether there will be a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, spending billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.
The push for a Washington takeover of the Internet is coming from the White House. It includes Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar, who told The Wall Street Journal in April that the $7.2 billion of stimulus money for broadband she is helping spend is a "down payment on future government investments in the Internet." She went on to say: "We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail or any other public utility."
Please, please, please...do not equate my need for water with internet capability! Sounds more like an attempt to regulate my freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Giving the government control over anything is giving control to a big gang of babies who live in a world where the rest of us do not. The current government has spent record breaking amounts of money that it doesn't have, blamed it on previous governments, then is expanding it's control over every aspect of American's lives. That is not a democracy and this isn't either. No matter what you think of the current government, giving the government this much power will be the end of the US by one administration or another because none of them will give it up.
|
|
|
These people need to know that the 50mbps plan they just bought only applies to a small percentage of the content. Its all about truth in advertising. Every advertisement, letter, or bill talking about the speed the company is giving needs to state that they throttle their content.
|
|
|
The open Internet is free speech. If the Gov't grts a finger in any thing it isnt long until the LONG ARM OF GOV'T IS REACHING EVERYONE. 'nough said!!
|
|
|
As an Americans for Prosperity activist, I am submitting the following comment regarding the matter of preserving the open Internet. GN Docket No, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52:
The Internet is highly competitive. Traditional “phone” and traditional “cable” companies have been locked in an intense struggle to win customers, and wireless is rapidly becoming another viable alternative to wired broadband connections. If a private company blocked or censored Internet traffic maliciously it would lose its customers. If government exercised control over the Internet, there would be no place to turn.
The envisioned burden of proof for requiring network management practices is unreasonably restrictive and will prevent business models that may be economically efficient. This will impose uncertainty and create litigation risks. Such restrictions would lower the rate of return on investments in building network capacity to the point that some of those investments would no longer make economic sense.
The Internet would then either remain crippled or be “rescued” with taxpayer subsidies, which would inevitably bring government control and politicization along with government ownership. Indeed, this “public utility” model is the desired outcome of many proponents of regulation, including former White House adviser Susan Crawford and Free Press founder Robert McChesney.
Such a transformation of the Internet into a government-controlled public utility is a major policy change that should be debated in Congress, the legitimately elected legislative branch of government. The Commission should not on its own set into motion regulatory changes that will force us down this path.
I am especially concerned that the Commission is already contemplating Internet content restrictions, such as the suggestion under paragraph 77 of the NPRM that the Commission may ultimately be the arbiter of which competing interests should be prioritized.
Advocates of so-called “net neutrality” have been ringing alarm bells now for so many years (starting with the November 19, 2002 letter to the Commission from the so-called “Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators”) that their claims should be heavily discounted. In the absence of concrete evidence of discriminatory or anti-competitive behavior, there is simply no rationale for imposing new regulations that could have the effect of slowing down the great engine of innovation, growth, and expression that the lightly regulated, competitive Internet has become.
|
|
|
Julius,
I've been told by reliable sources that you guys are actually reading all these notes, so I'd like to put this one directly to you.
If you take valuable beach front spectrum away from the TV broadcasters and then just auction it all off to the highest bidder (AT&T, etc.) then that's just taking our problem out of the frying pan and throwing it into the fire. Out of one monopoly's hands, and into another.
Let's not do that.
Instead, I think it would be MUCH MORE EXCITING to take that spectrum and open it up into an IP Citizen's band, and then just see what comes of it.
One naysayer I met yesterday at the Open Internet Innovation workshop invoked Shannon-Hartley as an excuse for why "this wouldn't work." but I remember that there were also people like that who declared the internet wouldn't work, either. But the way I see it, people will invent all sorts of novel technologies, that will connect into, and enhance the existing internet (as long as you make sure everybody can)
If we open that spectrum up to the public, who knows what kind of exciting technologies will come out of it? The only way to find out is to set us free, and give it a try.
|
|
|
I'm filing because:
I'm a student who depends on access to the latest research for my academic career in which I have an enormous investment
• An open Internet gives me freedom of expression - freedom to write and share my views and the freedom to find alternative viewpoints;
• I want other, smarter people to come up with the next Google, the next YouTube, the next Web application that I can't even imagine;
• I want to read about people and cultures that are different from me;
• Mainstream media make me scream expletives, and I use the Internet to find alternative sources of news and information;
• I want to e-mail my boyfriend a link to a picture that reminds me of our last vacation;
• Net Neutrality means I don't need anyone's permission to create my own videos, and media execs aren't determining what's funny - we are;
• I come up with potential million-dollar ideas all the time, and some day, I just might start my own business;
• An open Internet feeds the activist in me, allowing me to engage with my community and organize for social change online;
• It's winter and I'd rather shop online, only I still want to support a local business;
• I needed advice on how to prime and paint a room, and found a video online that taught me how to do it; and,
• I don't want to be censored.
This is why I'm filing.
Jim Allison in Santa Barbara
|
Vote Up
Vote Down
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Close