A few weeks ago, I posted an article to Reddit.com (one of the Internet's most beloved social news sites) about the woeful prospects for Net Neutrality. I wrote, "If we want Net Neutrality (or anything else), then we need to demand it."
I proposed a grassroots political organization: One that wouldn't be beholden to any party or politician, just solely dedicated to political action on behalf of the issues we care about. That organization is now the Open Source Democracy Foundation (OSDF).
Net Neutrality was a natural choice to tackle as our first issue. We didn't just choose it arbitrarily, however. We posted our ideas and opinions on reddit.com/r/rpac. Debate ensued from the Reddit community. People proposed we take on a range of issues, from cutting defense spending to solar tax credits to Congressional term limits. But in the end, we entered an IRC chat room and cast our votes to adopt Net Neutrality as our first issue.
The case for nonpartisan support for Net Neutrality couldn't be stronger. As one of our members (g3tting3v3n) put it, "What we are doing, right here, right now, is an illustration of how the Internet can be used as a user-friendly tool of democracy to empower the masses."
Regardless of peoples' ideologies and political persuasions, we find it hard to believe anyone wants the Internet to be less free or less open. Another post from a user (wdr1) read, "I'm a 'Conservative' who feels strongly about Net Neutrality...Is the [OSDF] something for me?" The answer is, obviously, yes. The user went on to write, "I'm going to disagree with the majority of the Reddit base on a lot of issues. One issue, however, I feel very strongly about & would love to support, and help Reddit push forward, is Net Neutrality. (My livelihood is tied to the Internet. To me, helping preserve the Internet is [a] lot like the forester who plants trees.)" I couldn't have said it better myself.
So, if we agree that the Internet should remain in its current free and open form, then the question becomes: How do we keep it that way? Well, like those at Free Press and SavetheInternet.com, the members of the OSDF believe that there need to be strong guidelines in place to prevent any tampering from the Internet gatekeepers (Comcast, we're looking in your direction!). That's why we're proud to partner with SavetheInternet to send all the letters we can to Federal Communications Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, telling them that we need real Net Neutrality--not a version that contains giant loopholes or leaves wireless Internet unprotected. Please consider joining our effort - take action now.
This project is not affiliated with Reddit.com.
Follow Eddie Geller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eddie_geller
Art Brodsky: The Mythical 'Reality' of the FCC's Net Neutrality Campaign
And if you're interested, there's a great Q&A on Reddit from Tim Karr (campaign director at Free Press) about NN: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/eh68t/ask_me_about_net_neutrality/
What is everyone really afraid will happen without "net neutrality"? That some websites will pay to have more data routed faster than others? Why is this bad? Wouldn't it make sense to have data intensive sites pay more to handle the volume of the data? Shouldn't we wait to see how it pans out before making irrational assumptions and demanding that government step in? Especially since government could step in at anytime.
The concern about giving control to government is that even if you trust politicians in office today that somewhere down the line somebody comes into power who will use that control to silence their opposition. That to me would be the much bigger threat. Corporations want to make money sure. That has always been the case. We know how to guard against that though. We don't have to pay $100 for a hamburger even though McDonalds or Burger King would love for us to. Why is that? Competition. So what we really need government to do is to insure that there is competition in the market for internet service providers.
I share your skeptism and fear of BigBro properly managing, ahh, anything. (esp. 1st Admendment)
They do not have historicial precedent working for their argument.
We're the consumer.
No, but we do demand (with the rare exception of toll roads) that our system of highways be equally accessible to everyone, regardless of who they are, what they drive, or how much money they have.
I think the issue here is less about preventing businesses from getting more bandwidth than it is about companies restricting bandwidth from those who won't pay a premium price. And where would that leave, say, a very creative person with little money?
To those of us who are for government-mandated net neutrality, that creative person with little money is what this issue is all about. We're afraid that "pay to play" scenario will create an internet where only big money players (read: corporations) are seen and heard.
Those who respond "Tough, because that's the way the cookie crumbles in the free (i.e. 'unregulated') market" have a very hardened view of fairness and the role of the individual in our society.
Save us the government! Give more power to an organization that represents moral interests over practical ones!
I'll be waiting...
"Net Neutrality rules don't give government extraordinary powers to police Internet content. They just prevent ISPs from breaking the Internet's openness and meddling with our ability to connect with everyone else online."
You can read Tim's more extensive Q&A right here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/eh68t/ask_me_about_net_neutrality/
Also, if you want to talk more, feel free to email me at contact [at] theosdf.org.
So, the way it is now, lets say your internet provider is Comcast. Now lets say someone doesn't like Comcast and puts up comcastsucks.com website. The way things are now with the Net Neutrality we have and what the new rules would preserve, Comcast can't block access to your site. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast could simply block its customers access to that site.
Lets say TimeWarner is your ISP. And the entertainment arm of TimeWarner sets up their own fee based video website like Hulu. And you are a big Hulu and streaming Netflix fan. Well, now with the Net Neutrality we have and would like to preserve, which ever service you like you will have delivered to your PC at the top speed you get normally. If we lose Net Neutrality, TimeWarner would be free to either cause Hulu or NetFlix data to stream much more slowly making it unusuable for you or they could just block it all together.
Again the the key thing to remember: Net Neutrality is what we ALREADY HAVE. The proposed rule by the FCC would merely ensure it stays that way.
1. All providers will do this. There will be no choice.
2. More importantly and one of the reasons for the crucial need for this, many many consumers only have 1 choice for ISP provider in their areas.