NYT: Time to Make Net Neutrality the Law

The New York Times gets Net Neutrality right again, and again, and again. In their fourth editorial in support of Net Neutrality the newspaper's editors write:

"A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality the law. "

Why? According to the Times, we can't let Internet service providers prioritize certain content over others.

Allowing these companies to become the Internet's gatekeepers would undermine the democratic nature of the Web, which has made it such a great engine for free speech and economic growth.

"[I]t would be bad for everyone but the service providers," the Times editors write. "Businesses could slow down or block their competitors' Web content. A cable company whose leaders disapprove of a particular political or social cause could block sites supporting that cause."

The Web was invented using open, decentralized architecture in a way that allows anyone with a computer and a connection to begin receiving and sending information. This opened up the world to a new concept, "innovation without permission," whereby every idea had an equal chance to be heard, and to rise to the top free of gatekeepers or corporate and government discrimination.

Net Neutrality is the principle that keeps the Internet's great marketplace of ideas churning.

Saturday's editorial echoes earlier efforts by the Times. In 2006, the paper wrote:

[The] 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.

Later in the same year the Times' Adam Cohen wrote that the phone and cable companies fighting Net Neutrality have been waging a "misleading campaign" using slogans like "hands off the Internet" and phony spokespeople like Mike McCurry and Scott Cleland to pose as genuine grassroots and private-sector voices against Net Neutrality.

(To expose the depth of telco Astroturfing, visit www.freepress.net/astroturf)

"What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it," Cohen wrote.

On Saturday, the Times' editors wrote that the fate of Net Neutrality may lie with the Obama administration, which has been outspoken in its support of the principle:

"A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality the law."

The article also calls on Julius Genachowski, Obama's new chair at the FCC, to adopt stronger rules that could also have the force of law.

The Times is not alone among major US dailies in support of Net Neutrality. The list of supporters includes the San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Seattle Times, Los Angeles Times, St. Petersburg Times and the Houston Chronicle.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[iblogleft]

I would like to see this pass. That said, there needs to be massive regulations for spam, junk mail, bandwidth throttling, and privacy rights.

If I want to game, and I have cable with 3 people on the block downloading massive files (like watching movies), I want time sensitive packets directed first. (I want my games lag free)

When I open my mailbox, I do not want mail directed at me from any advertiser i have not given specific permission to, it uses bandwidth I pay for and did not ask for.

I do not want to see 2 gig bandwidth caps (as they are testing in the mid west) that's like 1/2 of one high def movie on netflix, so everyone has to buy the premium 99 dollar a month plan for a 500gig cap.

There is a center in this argument for sure.

[itsmyparty]

I strongly agree.The price should remain very affordable so all can use it.We lag behind many other countries.­This needs to be fixed.Desp­ite Rockefelle­r.Despite corporate greed.Cong­res could quickly help mend their image here by doing the right thing quickly.I hope they jump on it.

[EminemsRevenge]

Right away you've identified yourself as a SPECIAL INTEREST!!!

I want this IF...once everyone tags on their IF's then the bill gets mired in inanities. The only thing IPOs should be responsible for is protecting users from hackers.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­=========
When I open my mailbox, I do not want mail directed at me from any advertiser i have not given specific permission to, it uses bandwidth I pay for and did not ask fof
==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========

Whatever MY spam filter misses is easily deletable.­..ONCE you start adding stipulations THEN you open Pandora's Box.

[iblogleft]

Well, I am a network engineer, and I see the effect and COST that spam has before you ever get it in your inbox. It is a unnecessary load on our networks, and should be managed as such.

[rjmiller]

You seem to have misunderstood what "neutrality" means. By having your gaming packets prioritized above downloads you support filtering, NOT neutrality. The sad thing is that it is actually cheaper for ISPs to increase bandwidth capabilities than it is to develop filters and actively monitor bandwidth. So, if you want less lag, tell your ISP to run some more lines.

There is no center in this argument. There is simply an absolute: we pay for access to a wire and no one stands in our way.

[texasteph12570]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd a follower of hugo chavez who has said," the incredible revolution in venezuela",, refering to when chavez nationalized the television and radio industries.

obama advisor cass sunstein has said that the internet should be regulated and free speech limited.

is this the change you voted for?

[alexhoward]

ISPs should be regulated. They are the ones trying to interfere with free speech, and regulation would prevent them from doing that. Do try to keep up.

[texasteph12570]

i think that i am keeping up, as my understanding is he wants to regulate t.v., radio, and the internet, to "balance" what "he" would consider inappropriate speech.

now if i were a freewheeling progressive i would be as suspicious, as the conservatives are, of anyone who would suggest that regulating any form of communication is the responsibility of the government.

whether you agree with the speech or not any intelligent person would argue that if they can silence my speech they can also silence your speech, as they did in germany, china, vietnam, n korea, cuba, venezuela, etc....whe­re do you draw the line? who makes that decision?

"It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion". Joseph Goebbels
National socialism; still a bad idea.

[chuckhelsinger]

You guys in the white house, you senators have this war going in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw that opium on CNN was up to 93% grown in Afghanistan. It started in Nam then the wars later, like now you guys get this sh.. and make money off it. That's not right for you to do but you people do it anyway. Then you bust pot heads. While you guys can get your kick back for opium and other strong drugs.

[oOo Shortbus oOo]

Where did that "Information Super Highway" end up?
You remember the one they were to build in the 90's after all those tax breaks the telecoms got to build it

[Dunque]

If the internet has been such a great engine for free speech and economic growth, why are you advocating a new regulatory regime?

Net neutrality is more accurately described as the government managing allowable content.

The internet is free and open now. Leave it alone and cast your censorious aspirations elsewhere.

[Vxx]

You either haven't studied the issue at all or lack the technical background to be commenting­.... or you're a shill for the content monopolizers. Perhaps you should spend more time over at Slashdot and watch how fast you get eviscerated by people who actually know what they're talking about.

[anandakos]

Sir,

I hope you understand that the people who own the infrastructure on which the internet is hosted believe that the "democratic nature of the web" is not a "feature" but a "bug". They are very much a part of the power structure at which the sometimes unhinged but at least freely interchanged ideas spread far and wide on the internet are often aimed.

If you were one of the Roberts brothers and had "invested" nearly ten million dollars in sock puppet congresscritters over a couple of decades, wouldn't YOU want some return on your money? Of course you would. You can darn betcha that there are all sorts of oily Comcast lobbyists telling the object of their affections that "well, you know the New York Times is just trying not to pay so much for access to their websites. They don't really believe what they're saying, and you shouldn't either."

[Philosopher-king]

Leave this internet alone.

[Vxx]

So you're rather have a small number of corporations turn the Internet into a "one way" street of passive consumeris­m.... another cable entertainment delivery tool?

[Philosopher-king]

IF they mess with the internet, would we not revolt? I would hope we would.

Leave the internet the way it is or else you goons!

[DaneAZ]

Clearly NOTHING good is beyond being destroyed by the greed of humanity and the disgusting creatures that are huge American corporations.

[tompoe]

A pleasant moment seeing corporate media on the right side of the issue. Could be a big help, even if it's coming from a highly suspect source.