InfoWorld Home / Networking / The Deep End / An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality
September 23, 2009

An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality

The sword of tiered Internet service has been hanging over our heads for far too long

| Print | 21 comments|
193 Recommendations

My first reaction to the speech by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski about the FCC's interest in pursuing a foundation of Net neutrality was: finally. Finally we might be able to have some backing from the government in a quest for the obvious -- that big ISPs should not have the right to pick and choose what traffic is delivered based on boardroom decisions and the squeals of shareholders. That the Internet should continue to be open for everyone with a connection at home or access to a library.

Naturally, there are those in government who think this is a terrible idea -- namely, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tx). She has introduced an amendment to an unrelated bill that would bar the FCC from pursuing this action. If this passes, there will be no way for the FCC to fund development of regulations to mandate free and open networks within the United States. If I read the fine print correctly (and IANAL), the FCC would be powerless to control the actions of the big carriers.

[ FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has enumerated six principles to safeguard an open Internet. | Keep up on the day's tech news headlines with InfoWorld's Today's Headlines: First Look newsletter. ]

The justification Hutchinson uses for this amendment is that mandating Net neutrality would "stifle innovation," and "America has experienced robust investment and innovation in network performance and online content and applications. For that innovation to continue, we must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations." Here is my reply:

Dear Senator Hutchinson:

I'm sorry, Senator, you have it backward. If the big ISPs are allowed to play free and easy with packets traversing their networks, innovation will plummet. Only those companies that can afford to tithe the big ISPs will get to play in the "publicly accessible" Internet, and those that can't afford to do so will simply cease to exist as an entity on the network -- traffic to their sites can and will simply be throttled to ridiculous levels or tossed entirely. Make no mistake: You're advocating and encouraging a legal nationwide protection racket.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
21 of 21 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
nealroche 23-Sep-09 11:02am
Broadband Internet Service unfettered by traffic filtering is an essential utility in the 21st century for individuals to pursue free expression and economic empowerment through new innovations. Giving up Net neutrality rules for big Telecom would be like allowing the Electric company control what appliances you can use in your own home. How could any politician side with the big Telecom companies against their own constituent’s freedom? It is so disingenuous to hear them message this issue as “new government regulations which will stifle innovation”. I wish Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tx) would listen to citizens and entrepreneurs for a few minutes and drop the Telecom Lobbyists talking points. Neal Roche
ajallen 23-Sep-09 11:48am
1 reply
I think this kind of letter would get the desire response, and be a lot more concise. Dear Senator Hutchinson: You do realize that your proposed amendment on preventing the FCC from mandating Net Neutrality will be giving ISPs the legal ability to make you (or you opponents (or any political person or issue with which they do not agree) invisible on the internet. What a brave new world...
merrill77 29-Sep-09 10:56am
There will probably be a provision buried somewhere that prohibits denying access to website of those holding public office. :(
RamboTribble 23-Sep-09 1:03pm
1 reply
Mr. Venezia, your arguments are well stated and spot on. For most who are knowledgeable, and not in the pocket of a major ISP, Net neutrality is a no-brainer. Ajallen, I like it, but I fear the prospects of silencing one's opponents may loom larger in the view of someone who imagines, by representing the ISP's agenda, the ISP will do their bidding.
okwhen 23-Sep-09 6:07pm
Tribble hit the nail on the head with “the ISP will do their bidding.” After all, the congress granted ISP’s immunity from prosecution for participating in spying on American citizens. It seems the majority of Americans decided to give up their freedom in hopes of safety. History reveals that this only leads to tyranny. Will we receive Net neutrality, NO! We will receive just enough to give us false hope. I am a realist and time will reveal the outcome.
drdam4n 23-Sep-09 1:32pm
2 replies
The problem is the effing republicans and their push for big business and big business, in turn, lining the republican pockets with plenty of cash, benefits and payoffs (kickbacks or whatever). It's all about the politics...
DL 29-Sep-09 12:44pm
Research the amount of money contributed to Democrat party law makers versus the effing republicans. You might not be surprised, but at least you will know the facts. Both are too well funded!
JtechG 30-Sep-09 6:57am
As opposed to the effing democrats who I am sure never take money from labor unions or anybody else. Wake up bonehead.....all politicians are funded by somebody...one group is no better than the other.
Accounting IT Guy 23-Sep-09 3:26pm
1 reply
Whats next? Long Distance fees applied to internet traffic? hahaha...
mkleinpaste 29-Sep-09 10:45am
Sssh. Don’t give them any more ideas for raping the American consumer!
tbranaman 23-Sep-09 3:32pm
Since the infrastructure was created in part using public funds, and the ISPs want to extend and improve the infrastructure using public funds, that infrastructure should be for the benefit of the public, not the ISPs. If they want full control and no government regulation of what goes over the wires, let them string those wires without taxpayer money, public rights-of-way, government monopolies, or any other government provided, taxpayer funded, benefits. Even where there are competing delivery methods (e.g. cable and DSL), and in spite of their claims to the contrary (intended to avoid oversight and regulation) the companies providing those services have local monopolies - you can't choose among cable carriers for instance.
cyberlawyer 23-Sep-09 6:41pm
It is pretty clear who is pushing Bailey-Hutchinson's buttons. She is an announced and likely leading candidate for the Governor of Texas and a little 'ole company by the name of AT&T happens to be headquartered in Dallas. AT&T/SBC has been amazingly affective at creating rules of the game via Congress and at times, the FCC that give it a massive home field advantage. Dell, TI, (large Cisco campus) other Texas companies, let Kay know that you disagree with AT&T. Austin has flourished in knowledge economy. Dallas and San Antonio have also benefited. Speak up Texans!
Alz 23-Sep-09 10:07pm
nealroche, there are a lot of problems with comparing the net to th electrical system. One that stands out is that there is no such thing as "all you can eat" electricty. If this ill-advised net-neutraility is push upon us, prices will go up as we will have to pay for what we use. Torrent users and heavy video users will pay through the nose. They'll have to because the carrier s will have to add bandwidth rather than shape traffic. Like with electricty, there is not an infinite amount of bandwidth. But let me get this straight: people are complaining about a lack of competition and that we don't get enough bandwidth, but they think inserting more of the government to limit how the carriers use bandwidth is going to help??? It's amazing how people are duped. Just like the "Employee Free Choice Act" is not about free choice, these rules are not about "net neutrality." The rules are about CONTROL. Pracically, what will happen is the carriers will still do traffic shaping - because they'll have to. But few will complain as the real intent of the rules is to start the process of government control. This is really the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it.
richb-hanover 24-Sep-09 4:15am
Paul: This is the best description of the problem I've found. Thanks! Alz: You missed nealroche's point... Of course you should pay for bandwidth. No one is arguing differently. But he was saying that it would be a terrible idea to allow the electric company to dictate which appliances you could use. (NB: there was a time when this was the case. In the early days of electrification, there were competing companies: one sold AC service, and the other sold DC current.) But *access* (ie, my ability to reach any site with equal priority, based on my contract with *my* ISP) is a fundamental underpinning of the Internet. If there are no rules regarding the priority of access, Paul's example of a $5/month interceptor page is entirely within the realm of my imagination. And this would be a terrible loss of the value of the Internet.
zornwil 24-Sep-09 5:40am
I like this op-ed a lot and while perhaps not ideal as an email/snail-mail to Congress, it is a worthwhile rallying point. Thanks.
zman58 24-Sep-09 5:59am
Paul, Great article and I agree with you completely. Thanks for clearing things up--hopefully for many. P.S. I would love to hear Senator Hutchinson's response to each of the points you brought up.
A0110915 24-Sep-09 7:06am

The big ISPs have paid a substantial amount of money for the infrastructure. They have to have SOME rights, but since public money was also used the public also has rights. This calls for intelligent compromise. By the way, I favor charging people for use of the internet, just as we charge people for the use of any other utility. I see the internet as similar to a highway, and we tax peoples' use of the highway in rough proportion to their level of usage (through fuel taxes). Among other things, charging some modest amount for internet use might help cut down on SPAM. But it would also prevent the bandwidth hogs from making the net so slow for those of us with modest but important needs. As it is today, it's like allowing all the semi's to hog the road and keep the regular vehicles going slow all day.

jtgear 24-Sep-09 9:20am
1 reply
As for Net neutrality, there are 2 dominate positions that are being pushed forward. 1) Basically allows the "big" un's to control the net. 2) Thru the "premise" of neutral "regulations" the government. As any thinking person knows, EVERYTIME government gets involved we have disaster after disaster. Given the current direction of government over the past 10-12 years and the current acceleration of "progressive" policies coming out of Washington... Perhaps it is best for all parties to "veto" any and all government attempts to do any form of regulation at all and let the market set both direction and function. This, my friends is the true response that will continue innovation, and service expansion of the network. http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_internet_fcc/2009/09/20/262385.html
5-ht 29-Sep-09 1:17pm
jtgear - hardly a helpful comment. Instead of discussing policy you are trumpeting a political ideology and a simple minded one at that: Big Business = Always Good, Government = Always Bad. A little government intervention in the financial marketplace would have gone a long way toward mitigating the current financial crisis.
DL 29-Sep-09 1:52pm
1 reply
My concern with "Net Neutrality" is that the US government is attempting to strengthen its ability to set rules as to the content - rather than the plumbing - of the internet. FCC Chairman Genachowski's first "principle" demonstrates the potential for abuse: "Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice." Lawful in which state or country? Who is responsible for ensuring that only "lawful" content is accessed? China and Iran use this "principle" to effectively control what information their peoples have access to. Genachowski's second "principle" is equally troubling: "Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement." What exactly are "the needs of law enforcement?" Is it about bandwidth? Is it about prioritization? Is it about resources needed to monitor whether consumers are violating the first "principle?" The game in Washington these days seems to be about controlling as many aspects of The People's lives as possible. I am suspicious as to why these same politicians are also champions of "Net Neutrality."
Buckminster 3-Nov-09 1:50pm
That's your concern with Net Neutrality? If you don't have Net Neutrality in the first place, you don't even get to have that concern. Or, to put it another way, who do you want deciding what contenct is permissible? The government or the telcos? Me, I choose the government, because (at least theoretically) the government is us.

Sign up to receive Government Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.