ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz
Home / News & Blogs / ZDNet Government

The death of Net neutrality: Five quick thoughts

By | April 6, 2010, 12:17pm PDT

Summary: This is bad news for all of us online. Here are five quick thoughts.

Today, a federal appeals court rejected the FCC’s claim that Comcast couldn’t “sculpt” Internet traffic and block the flow of BitTorrent data.

This effectively put a stake in the heart of Net neutrality. It sets a precedent for all such cases, and, in effect, allows Internet carriers of all types to adjust their traffic in any way they wish.

This is bad news for all of us online. Here are five quick thoughts:

#1 Killing Net neutrality means big players always win

There could come a time when your access to favorite sites is slowed or stopped, just because those favorite sites couldn’t pay some kind of exorbitant access fee.

This ruling opens the door to tiers of pricing for data transit, making the Internet superhighway into a toll road.

Anyone who’s driven on Route 287 vs. the New Jersey Parkway knows the toll road is often a lot slower.

#2 Say goodbye to Skype and VOIP

Are you enjoying all that free voice communication you’ve had with Skype? Did you enjoy calling your relatives back in the old country — and not having to spend a dime to take all the time with them you wanted?

Get ready to say goodbye. VOIP and cell phones having been killing the land-line business, but voice communication carriers love making money with all the little nickle-and-dime doodads they charge.

VOIP and Skype eliminated that. But if they can legally charge to carry Skype traffic (or just straight block it), ISPs stand to win and you will lose.

#3 Attack on free speech

This is a bit of a “what-if,” but what if a company with one political leaning bought a broadband supplier and blocked all the traffic from anything with a different political leaning?

Given that at the “last mile,” most of us only have one or two choices for broadband supplier, this could effectively block access to any competing ideological view.

Without Net neutrality, this is more possible than you might think.

#4 Killing Net neutrality could screw up getting real work done

Wikipedia reports an interesting case where the reset packets sent by Comcast to block BitTorrent uploads also interfered with legitimate traffic from enterprise clients, including Lotus Notes.

By deregulating the open nature of the Internet, the possibility exists that certain applications could be favored by certain networks. Use Outlook? Well then you better not consider Network A. Use Gmail, well, then you better not consider Network B.

It’ll be a mess.

#5 It ain’t over until it’s over

Just because the FCC lost this case doesn’t mean the whole Net neutrality battle is over. Far from it. Net neutrality doesn’t just pit small vs. large or ideology vs. ideology. Oh, no. It’s also pits ginormous against ginormous.

What happens if Google, say, buys an ISP and decides to block Microsoft? Godzilla vs. Megatron.

What happens if News Corporation (which owns MySpace and Fox News) decides it needs to buy a broadband supplier so it can slow down access to Facebook and other news networks? Mechagodzilla vs. Gorosaurus.

See where I’m going here? Net neutrality means everyone is equal on the net. When everyone isn’t equal, some companies will try to yank the chains of other companies and battles will ensue, keeping this debate in the courts for years.

Plus, the FCC has more tricks up its sleeve. If the FCC loses the right to regulate the Internet, it will effectively lose much of its reason to exist, as more and more communication goes online.

Hot dogs, got your hot dogs right here. Gonna be a heck of a fight!

See also: Comcast wins U.S. Appeal Court case, denies FCC oversight authority

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

Topics

FCC, Skype Technologies S.A., Net Neutrality, Broadband Company, New Jersey Parkway, Internet, Federal Government, Telecommunications, Government, David Gewirtz

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
150
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Five quick thoughts on the death of Net neutrality
efsane Updated - 11th Apr 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!!
sesli sohbet sesli chat
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Good thing you're not a lawyer
joeschmo1of3 6th Apr 2010
The decision today says that the FCC can't use its authority under existing law to regulate internet transmission speeds. If Congress gets its act together and writes a better law than the one the FCC tried to its shoehorn policy under, then it will be able enforce its mandates. This isn't death of Net Neutrality, just the death of regulatory overreach in this specific instance.
0 Votes
+ -
Good point but one question
otaddy 6th Apr 2010
Does congress have any limits at all as to what they can regulate?

This all seems like regulatory overreach to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Interstate commerce
djchandler 7th Apr 2010
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
0 Votes
+ -
Nonsense!
adornoe@... 7th Apr 2010
Though the commerce clause does indeed exist, it was not intended as you think.

The commerce clause was not intended for the government to regulate or to control how business is conducted.

It was intended to allow business to flow smoothly between the states. It wasn't intended for the federal government to extend it's power, which is what's happened in the last 100 years. If the federal government would just regulate for the smooth flow of business and allow businesses and the states and the people to function, then the commerce clause would be no problem.

The commerce clause has been abused to extend the powers of the federal government. The 10th amendment to the constitution was intended to limit the powers of the federal government. The commerce clause does not supersede the 10th amendment. The commerce clause has been used to legitimize the growth of the federal government. That was not the original intention. Anything can be rationalized to allow the government to abuse and overstep its boundaries.
0 Votes
+ -
"Nonsense" is Completely Erroneous and Ridiculous
RadarBob 7th Apr 2010
I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise. However, it has now been demonstrated that large corporations such as Comcast must have regulation because they refuse to act respnsibly and use the power that accompanies their size for more than just looking at the size of their next-quarter-profits. The purpose of regulation is to keep public utilities acting in the best interests of those they are supposed to serve. The concept of net neutrality is one of the foundations upon which the Internet thrives. To permit ANY ISP to encroach upon the freedom of the Internet for ANY reason is the first step in killing its usefullness.

The judge in this case correctly ruled based on current law. It is now incumbent upon the Congress to swiftly act to enable and defend net neutrality. Failure to do so will effectively give ISPs the ability to perform the type of censorship that China is doing. No one in his right mind could want that!
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm
Azathoth 7th Apr 2010
"I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise. However, it has now been demonstrated that large corporations.."

So, some enterprises should be freer than others?

IMHO, free enterprise and personal freedom are on opposites sides on the cosmic scale. As free enterprise goes increases, personal freedom decreases.

A staunch free enterprise business environment will result in one corporation controlling the country if not the world. Human greed will have it no other way.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not a free enterprise..
AzuMao 7th Apr 2010
..when utilities can use monopolistic power to make it impossible for any competitors to exist.
0 Votes
+ -
At the extreme, you are correct.
djchandler Updated - 7th Apr 2010
Hopefully it will never come to that.

Totally free enterprise/capitalism is a means of promoting social and economic Darwinism as the driving force of our society. I don't ever want to have to beg for a fief or boon from the likes of Lord Rupert.

Alan Greenspan overlooked that variable, avarice and greed, in his economic models. He skirts directly calling it greed or avarice in the following quote, but it's obvious what he means. On October 23, 2008, he admitted the following before a Congressional hearing investigating the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Congressman Henry Waxman "My question is simple. Were you wrong?"

Greenspan "Partially ... I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. I had been going for 40 years with considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. The overall view I take of regulation is, I took an oath of office when I became Federal Reserve chairman. I'm here to uphold the laws of the land passed by Congress, not my own predilections."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan
0 Votes
+ -
Good post! (nt)
djchandler 7th Apr 2010
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Comcast is not a Public Utility
bradsl@... 7th Apr 2010
This points to another common fallacy, just
because a business servers the "public", that
does not make it a "public utility". It remains
a private business with public stock, regulated
by the SEC, not the FCC.
In other words, they have no jurisdiction.
If you don't like the way Comcast does
business, then start a competitive service that
promises not to ever block any content for any
reason. If there is enough demand, you'll get
rich. If not, you'll get broke. That's the way
free enterprise works!
0 Votes
+ -
When Comcast is being subsidized by franchise exclusivity agreements...
still not nice 7th Apr 2010
...then it becomes a public utility. Our tax dollars are used to keep their monopolies in place while keeping the competition out.

Many areas of the country have only one ISP carrier to choose from and only one.

If they can't rectify that imbalance themselves locally, then it's time for government to step in and do it for them.
0 Votes
+ -
a LIE
sackbut 7th Apr 2010
I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
China's version of FCC
pwabbit@... 7th Apr 2010
China is demonstrating what government regulation can do. If the party in control of the FCC decides that NewsCorp or some other entity is promoting a bias that is not beneficial to the controlling party, that "free speech" could be regulated away much like China does. Look how bad the current US Administration hates Fox News. They would love to regulate them away.
0 Votes
+ -
More like China's version of Comcast.
AzuMao 8th Apr 2010
The FCC want to make it illegal for ISPs to be biased towards/against certain types of traffic.
0 Votes
+ -
When you don't know any better, you're bound to believe as you do.
adornoe@... 7th Apr 2010
"Nonsense" is Completely Erroneous and Ridiculous

It?s only erroneous and ridiculous to those who are not able to examine the issue.

I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise. ?

Baloney!

Anybody that supports free enterprise would not in any way support government intervention into any kind of enterprise. Regulations are one thing, but it is something quite different when laws or regulations are created in order to mandate that businesses manage their products or services in a way that government deems ?for the greater good?. That is interference in the free market system. The general welfare of the people can be best served by government getting out of the way of free enterprise. Free enterprise is the creator of jobs, not government, and when people don?t have jobs, the general welfare takes a dive.

However, it has now been demonstrated that large corporations such as Comcast must have regulation because they refuse to act responsibly

Utter nonsense!

And that is your view and the view of the democrats that want to pass laws to control free-enterprise. It is not the reality and it is not the way that free enterprise works.

and use the power that accompanies their size for more than just looking at the size of their next-quarter-profits.

You are so ignorant of free-enterprise.

Companies are created with the profit motive in mind. If there is no profit, then those companies won?t even get started or they?ll fail almost as soon as they get started. It is not evil to earn a profit. Profits are what makes companies grow and create jobs. The investors of those companies are taking risks by putting their money into them. Even if they make "obscene" profits, eventually that money makes it back into the market and into jobs and into growth for the economy. Government and it's regulation only serve to kill jobs and to kill incentives. Government only knows how to consume the riches created by free enterprise, but it doesn't create wealth or real jobs that grow the economy. Government's only function is to create the environment for companies to thrive and for people to fulfill their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The purpose of regulation is to keep public utilities acting in the best interests of those they are supposed to serve.

Comcast and the other ISPs are not public utilities. They do serve the public, but that doesn?t mean that they have to serve the public as the government deems. The fact is that if a company doesn?t serve the public in a manner which keeps that public happy as customers, then the company will eventually go out of business. Government intervention is mostly intended to create certain outcomes, such as giving away free or inexpensive services or products in order to attract votes.

The concept of net neutrality is one of the foundations upon which the Internet thrives.

The foundation for the "internet" is set down, by default, through the constitution. There is no exact law or wording which creates a foundation for internet "neutrality". The neutrality is inherited from the constitution. No need to create more artificial rules or laws.

Thus far, net neutrality has been a concept which took off on its own without any government intervention. Content is free for the most part. The biggest price people pay is in the monthly contract for their services. Obama and the democrats need to create a crisis where none exists. When the problem manifests itself for real, then that will be the time to get going with regulations.

To permit ANY ISP to encroach upon the freedom of the Internet for ANY reason is the first step in killing its usefullness.

You are still talking about a problem which doesn?t exist. And even within your statement above, you inadvertently mentioned the solution. If a company kills its usefulness, then it will be killing its business function, which is to serve its clientele. Once a company stops serving the needs of its clients, then that company will be hurting its bottom line and won?t be around for long.

And what the heck is that nonsense about encroaching upon the freedom of the internet? Only the government can encroach upon the liberties of the people and by extension the openness of the internet. There should be no government regulations which in effect ?dictate? upon companies how they will be running their businesses. That would be the real encroachment problem.

The judge in this case correctly ruled based on current law.

Yeah, but the way you?re arguing, you would?ve wanted a different ruling, even if though there is no law for the FCC or the courts to uphold.

It is now incumbent upon the Congress to swiftly act to enable and defend net neutrality.

Why are you still bringing up problems which don?t exist? The problem which you and the democrats are perceiving is one that exists only in your imagination. The democrats want to create a problem or a crisis as an excuse to create more government layers and more government regulations and more government power. The biggest problem with you is that you?re are not informed enough to make a valid judgment on the situation.

Failure to do so will effectively give ISPs the ability to perform the type of censorship that China is doing.

Garbage!

The ISPs and the content providers have been working with the internet for over 20 years and the problem which you and the democrats talk about is one that exists only in your anticipatory imagination.

The comparison with China is one that?s convenient only for those who are ignorant or for those who want the government to grab more power. If the government does grab more power over the internet or radio or TV, then that?s when you need to start worrying about government control of free speech and control over content. The China problem is one that is caused by big government. We still have freedom of speech and of the press. It?s only big government which interferes with those liberties. If you don?t want to see the problem in China come to the U.S., then you need to make sure that neither the FCC nor the federal government gain any more power over the internet or over radio or over TV or any other means of communication.

In effect, you are worrying about the wrong demons.

No one in his right mind could want that!

Nobody wants their internet content to be controlled or to be filtered. But, with the federal government gaining more control with regulations, then you can be sure that you will be bringing the control you fear to an earlier implementation.

You?re just too myopic to see the dangers. The demons you perceive are the wrong ones and the real demons have you right where they want you.
0 Votes
+ -
sorry; wrong placement of post...
adornoe@... Updated - 7th Apr 2010
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
All your opinion, of course...
still not nice 7th Apr 2010
...bloviation and all....

However I don't place all my faith in the actions of a corporation for the sake of "free enterprise" neocon ideology. There's nothing "free" about a local franchise monopolizing the territory it was granted years ago by the local governments, and then being able to dictate what it's content should be. Comcast and the like aren't representative of us and nobody elected them. Nor should they be subsidized by franchise exclusivity agreements.

I welcome government regulations in all this. If that offends your trickle-down free-enterprise neopoop in all this, too bad. Tough.
0 Votes
+ -
Great points
pwabbit@... 8th Apr 2010
I am glad to read a well thought out post. Big government is everybody's enemy. Our founding fathers feared a large government. We can now see why. They are reaching into all aspects of our lives. The last thing we need is for the FCC to have the authority to censure our free speech in the name of "net neutrality".
0 Votes
+ -
stop cutting and pasting
djchandler 7th Apr 2010
And you are not omniscient. I claim I'm not an idiot. I refuse to be programmed like a Dittohead.

Do you comprehend the context for which that clause was written? Do you seriously think the framers could predict the level of technology this would eventually apply too?

You evidently understand that this is the crux of the issue. But you are cutting and pasting the same thing over and over. That may validate your fellow believers, but it does nothing more for one who has read and analyzed your argument and believes that you don't fully comprehend the context.

I started to answer another of your posts with an admonition that you cannot batter sensibility out of people's heads who actually use their brain to think critically, not just parrot. Constantly repeating the same drivel over and over again doesn't make it make your argument any more true. It may actually weaken your viewpoint since you don't reciprocate and answer points brought up in other's responses to essentially the same post. One post is an argument. After that you're preaching, and it's falls on deaf ears.
0 Votes
+ -
The same response was warranted for the same type of nonsensical posts.
adornoe@... 7th Apr 2010
The same thing was posted in 2 different posts, and I answered accordingly.

Why create different responses for the same nonsensical posts?

Would you have preferred that I reword my responses just to make them sound different? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
0 Votes
+ -
Hardly nonsense
drobinow 7th Apr 2010
Original intent is really irrelevant. The commerce clause has been interpreted by the courts in a way you disapprove of. Tough!
And think God for that. I like living in the UNITED States.
0 Votes
+ -
More utter nonsense!
adornoe@... 7th Apr 2010
The original intent is still very valid, no matter what new technology exists and no matter what new circumstances there might be. Everything written into the constitution was and is still relevant.

Nothing that has happened in the last 200+ years invalidate the points in the constitution. The commerce clause has been deliberately misinterpreted in order to give more power to the federal government. The 10th amendment to the constitution indicates that the federal government has overstepped its boundaries, no matter how much bastardization is done to the commerce clause.

By the way, this country was created with a specific constitution for the guidance of the country. Therefore, it is you and others like you who don't belong in this country if you don't like the original intents of the constitution. People came to this country 400-500 years ago trying to escape the type of countries that existed in Europe and elsewhere, and now you and others are trying to re-create the same idiocy that still exists there. If you don't like what this country was intended to be, then you were and are completely free to move to a country more to your liking.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sorry, your miopic
Playos 7th Apr 2010
I'm just right of Thomas Jefferson... and even I can understand how the commerce clause directly speaks to the federal goverments power to regulate internet.

It's purpose was not to allow for 1) drug laws, 2) establish a minimum wage, 3) force people to buy private goods, or 4) dictate the use of your private land for your private consumption. It has been used to do those things, but don't assume that because it's been misused that it has no proper purpose in modern law. Every company is incorporated in a state, and each of them exert influence on state state laws... MS in WA, Apple/Google in CA, ext... so it will eventually devolve into a state by state infringement on the right of all to do business over a common system, not just nationally but internationally.

To all those who want the government out of your lives... I'm with you and I hate them as much as you do... but even Goldwater agreed we needed an Interstate and a military. Luckily the founders built a great framework for what government needs to do... and they included a commerce clause.
0 Votes
+ -
Playos: actually, you and I agree more than disagree.
adornoe@... 7th Apr 2010
You're just not noticing it.

And you don't need to bring in Thomas Jefferson into the conversation to try to sound more convincing. Thomas Jefferson hasn't been around for quite a while, but if he were still around, he'd very likely be in agreement with me. He and the founders intentionally create a weak federal government and intended for it to have limited and weak powers. It doesn't matter how much more technological or modern the world has become.

and even I can understand how the commerce clause directly speaks to the federal goverments power to regulate internet.

Wrong!

The original constitution and its amendments intentionally created a weak federal government, with the powers that you speak of being relegated to the states and the people. The states were intended to have more regulatory powers over companies and people than the federal level. I don't have a problem with government regulations, but those regulations should not be coming from the federal level. Regulations from the federal level were only intended to allow for the smooth flow of business between the states, but the commerce clause has been twisted to grant more power over the states and over businesses and over people. Those regulatory powers weren't intended to allow the federal government to become so large and as intrusive as it's become.

It's purpose was not to allow for 1) drug laws, 2) establish a minimum wage, 3) force people to buy private goods, or 4) dictate the use of your private land for your private consumption.

Irrelevant. But, if any government has power over the regulations over the items you mentioned, it is the states. The federal has overstepped its boundaries.

It has been used to do those things, but don't assume that because it's been misused that it has no proper purpose in modern law.

It has indeed been misused and abused. And the federal government still doesn't have a real role over commerce or businesses.

Every company is incorporated in a state, and each of them exert influence on state state laws... MS in WA, Apple/Google in CA, ext... so it will eventually devolve into a state by state infringement on the right of all to do business over a common system, not just nationally but internationally.

The states are and should be the ones with the regulations for how businesses conduct themselves, and the states should be the ones that offer protections for the people against the abusive powers that can come from monopolies or abusive businesses. The states, according to what the constitution allowed, have powers that the federal doesn't have, and that's regulatory powers over the corporations and businesses. The federal was only given the power to provide for the smooth flow of commerce between the states, but only because the states might not be able to come to agreements between themselves.

To all those who want the government out of your lives... I'm with you and I hate them as much as you do...

It's not a matter of hate with me. I just don't want them, the federales, to be as intrusive as they've become.

but even Goldwater agreed we needed an Interstate and a military.

And I too agree with Goldwater. But, no doubt you're failing to understand why I would agree with Goldwater and with you on this one.

The military is part of the national "infrastructure" which no state alone could handle. The highway system is also a mission of national scope and a facilitator for the smooth flow of commerce between the states. So, in those cases, the federal level has not overstepped its boundaries and it is serving the functions the founding fathers allowed.

Luckily the founders built a great framework for what government needs to do... and they included a commerce clause.

The commerce clause, as you stated, has been abused by the federal government and it has usurped powers that were not delegated to it by the constitution.

The states are the ones with the powers and when the federal government takes away those powers, the people are left with no choices about where they would like to live or work or create their businesses. The original intention of the founding fathers was to allow a differentiation between the states whereby people could move from state to state in search of an environment which would best serve their needs. As an example, the states were able to set regulations for automobile insurance, and even for medical insurance. If a person did not like the regulations in one state, he or she could always move to a state which would be more agreeable to his/her taste. If a state was taxing too high, he could always move to a lower tax state (which I myself did when I moved out of NY). When the federal government steps in and removes the flexibility from the states and from the people, then that federal government has become too intrusive. The country was not intended to become one entity with the sameness across the whole country.

Furthermore, big government always becomes very intrusive and our rights can be taken away by those that feel that government knows better.
0 Votes
+ -
Nonsense?? - Nuts!
seamountie 9th Apr 2010
That sounds like my ex-wife's reasoning. "Never mind what I said, you should have know what I meant."

When you cannot question the law-makers about their intent, you have to assume that they are like Horton: "I meant what I said and said what I meant."
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Re: Good thing you're not a lawyer
David Gewirtz 6th Apr 2010
> Good thing you're not a lawyer

Amen to that, brother. Amen to that!
0 Votes
+ -
Are you kidding?
MSBassSinger 7th Apr 2010
Since when does the government have the right to tell a private company how to manage their internal network?

The court decision was correct. How Comcast or any other ISP manages their networks is their business. Nothing prohibits another ISP from allowing traffic the others won't. last I checked, Comcast has competitors. I have Comcast cable, but I get my DSL elsewhere.

I wish people would consider how getting the government to force private business to do what you want destroys our private property rights.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Are you kidding?
WATKINS12@... Updated - 7th Apr 2010
I have two choices (other than dialup): Verizon and Time Warner cable. I chose the latter due to problems my employer had with Verizon's lack of service. Also, they wouldn't do DSL, only FIOS, which only goes to a point on the apartment complex's property, not to (and definitely not within) the apartment itself. Time Warner has blocked access to msn.com on two occasions and relented when I called them. I did a trace route which showed it stopping at a Road Runner server in San Francisco.

Often, my bandwidth seems to shrink around 9pm., yet they tell me I have Internet access at "blazing speeds." I don't consider 1.5-2.0mbps to be significant speed, much less "blazing."

My point: Where is the real competition here? I submit that MSBassSinger must be kidding.
0 Votes
+ -
Again, franchise exclusivity agreements...
still not nice 7th Apr 2010
...with local governments that guarantee only one ISP carrier monopoly can control a specific territory without competition.

That's not free enterprise

Either step aside and let some other players in, or have big government do it for you.
0 Votes
+ -
'Scuse me??
tenryuu 7th Apr 2010
I'm not a lawyer but I've studied both the law and government and I am have a REAL problem figuring out how you went from "getting the government to force private business..." to "destroys our private property rights"? So, even though a pharmaceutical company is a "private business" you feel the government has no right to control how it makes and markets its products? How about something simpler? How about your local dairy? Too hard? Mmm...how about a trucking company? Y'know...specifying how many hours a single driver can be behind the wheel in any given day? OH! I KNOW!!! How 'bout them airline pilots! Should the government be able to tell a PRIVATE COMPANY (say... NORTHWEST AIRLINES) how to schedule and control their flights?

I am SO TIRED of people claiming that ANY regulation is an infringement on their rights. And then whining when a plane crashes or several hundred people are sickened from tainted products.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you
rjcarlson49 7th Apr 2010
These private property fundamentalists ignore reality. If they had their way all but a few of us would be serfs or slaves.

Interesting how they worship original intent. I guess slavery is a fundamental founding principal of the US. The open ended-ness of the constitution was put there specifically so that we could apply it to new situations. The alternative leads to absurdity, i.e the framers could not imagine the Internet, so the constitution forbids federal laws from regulating it.
0 Votes
+ -
Your examples are horrible
Playos 7th Apr 2010
Truckers move items from one state to another... and are licensed by and regulated under state law, the federal laws only establish what a trucker from another state must do your state so that one state (say like Texas) doesn't put in so many restrictions as to violate a persons right to move about the country. This comes from the full faith and credit clause more than the commerce clause.

Airlines are given special exemption from state laws because of their inherent nature of not existing in a single state.

Pharmaceuticals are free to make any product they want and sell them... when they say it will cure/do something is when it comes to the point of controlled substances. This is a very debatable use of the commerce clause, and we have no way of knowing how many people have died because of the FDA's flawed review process.

Don't know much about food regulation, except that factory farmers love them because it helps stop out competition that can't afford compliance costs, even though when meat regulations were put in place there was no evidence of small butcher shops causing any significant damage.

Any regulation is an infringement on a right... the question needs to be what does the federal government (who's power is supposed to be limited and finite) have the right to regulate.

There is no way a rational person can say that something I grow in my backyard is illegal for me to a) grow or b) consume if I so choose. If you think I'm talking about weed, go research some Con law, cause your willfully ignorant.

With that... if the commerce clause doesn't cover the internet... it doesn't really cover anything. And still, the executive doesn't just get to make up powers, congress HAS TO ACTUALLY PASS A LAW.
0 Votes
+ -
Any regulation is an infringement on a right...
fjpoblam Updated - 7th Apr 2010
...including, I suppose, my right to sell spoiled meat
labeled as fresh...because it helps stop out competition
that can't afford compliance costs

No, I think regulations aren't necessarily per se
infringements of rights. They are intended restrictions
of certain activities. For not all activities are "right". And
the goal of restriction is to make our activities
predictable so that we may live together as social
groups.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:Are you kidding?
richdave Updated - 7th Apr 2010
...Since when does the government have the right to tell a private company how to manage their internal network?...

Since, oh, I don't know, electricity, natural gas, water, telecommunication, broadcast radio and television. Private companies provide the last mile to the subscriber to be sure. They can do what they want with their content, much as cities can decide to do what they want with their local traffic laws. When their traffic laws interfere with interstate commerce, the government, U. S., that is, certainly has the mandate to squash and invalidate such laws. Comcast is throttling some content(commerce) in favor of other content(commerce). Doesn't that appear that Comcast is usurping, in part, governments role in regulating commerce among the several states in order to feather it's nest with dollars, yours and mine?
0 Votes
+ -
You're kinda wrong
notsofast 7th Apr 2010
In most places there's no more than 2 providers of broadband and often there's only one. What's more, if a city tries to install their own municipal broadband you can be certain that the local cable company and the local phone company (assuming both provide broadband) will fight that action in court for as long as they can (add 5 years to your start date).

I believe that they have the right to manage their network, but given that encumbant carriers generally have the ability to prevent new competition from entering the market, they must be regulated. And frankly, communications companies have been regulated for longer than I've been alive.
0 Votes
+ -
Glad Net 'Neutrality' is dead
mikefarinha 6th Apr 2010
'What happens if Google, say, buys an ISP and decides
to block Microsoft?'

So what if they do?

Public reception of that would make Google quickly
reconsider.

The populace can make decisions for ourselves. We
don't need government restricting our choices to what
they deem appropriate.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Glad Net 'Neutrality' is dead
ci1205 6th Apr 2010
This is not a case of the populace making decisions for themselves! It is a case of a monopoly or near-monopoly power deciding what can and cannot be sent over their wire.
This is like saying that to buy the NY Post you have to pay the NY Times a fee.
Some people are so conditioned to react against government regulation that they don't even realize when it can do some good.
0 Votes
+ -
You do realize, of course
frgough 6th Apr 2010
that Comcast has near monopoly power because local city governments
decide it is in "the public" interest to only allow a single cable provider in
various municipalities.

So, basically, what you are advocating is the government regulate a
business to solve a problem government created through regulating a
business.

That doesn't earn you brightest bulb in the cupboard status.
0 Votes
+ -
Different scope of effect
Patanjali 7th Apr 2010
Different levels of 'government' are involved in those two instances.

I doubt that the FCC was trying to 'correct' what those municipalities had done, if they had even reached the FCC's radar.
0 Votes
+ -
There is another side, though.
clfitz 7th Apr 2010
There's a distant possibility that one broadband
carrier, and only one, will provide service in
my area. I, and others, have tried for years to
convince either the phone company or cable
company, or both, to provide it, and neither has
been interested until recently, when a new cable
company took over. They are the only entity
interested, because it's a very small area. If
that single carrier decides to limit access to
certain sites...

Regulation is needed in some cases, and this is
one.
0 Votes
+ -
The reason cities allow a single cable provider...
CarlS 7th Apr 2010
...is that it would be impractical to have many companies digging up the streets, stringing more wires, adding other equipment. Furthermore, in most areas it would be unprofitable to put in that much more infrastructure to serve fewer customers.

So the cities struck a deal. A franchise is awarded to one (or a small number) of cable companies that gives them exclusive rights to market in that city. In exchange, the cities demand that the company provides a certain level of service. Competition plays a role too, because the cable companies must periodically bid on the franchise. There you go: public interest.
0 Votes
+ -
That might have been fine back in the early 80s
still not nice 7th Apr 2010
...when all we had to deal with was the television channels being sent over a fixed band, but the world has changed a lot in the last 25-30 years. We're not talking huge copper cables and power lines here, but slim fiber optics. Any minimal disruption would be far preferable to the way the current situation is.

It's not in the public's interest to offer unlimited broadband and then find out you've been capped at 250GBs a month, because being granted an exclusive franchise let's you off the hook as far as modernizing your infrastructure is concerned.

That winds up being a (indirect) form of government subsidy that we all have to pay.
0 Votes
+ -
Subject missed. Failed.
Juergen Hartl 7th Apr 2010
You miss the whole issue.
To stick with your newspaper analogy: The FCC says that the newspaper
deliveries have to deliver the NY Times AND the NY Post. Comcast says: NO
we want to ONLY deliver the NY Post.
Now if Comcast is you only option to get the newspaper - what do you have?
A cooperate censorship.
Net neutrality is essential.
As to regulatory overreach: That argument is laughable. Overreach as in
"We will NOT allow traffic regulations". I hope the FCC appeals and wins
or Congress steps in fast.
0 Votes
+ -
No, you miss the whole issue.
don Miller 7th Apr 2010
Porn Associates wants to send out non stop videos causing a requirement to double the
infrastructure. I continue to use the same bandwidth but my rates double to support their
business. Does not make sense to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Then increase the bandwidth
still not nice 8th Apr 2010
Start raising capital and lay down some fiber optic cable. Verizon's able to do it. Why not the others.

Makes no sense for the public to keep granting these territorial exclusivity agreements to only one ISP in your geographical area.
0 Votes
+ -
Reward innovators (Google, Apple) or reward anti-innovators (Comcast)?
JohnVoter 6th Apr 2010
Net neutrality: Consumers pick the
services they want. Success goes to the
innovator.

No Net neutrality: Cable companies
control what services consumer can even see.
Innovators starve.

POP QUIZ: Who has brought more innovation to
consumers? a) Comcast = No known innovation or
b) Google = Gmail, Google Voice, Google 911,
Google Maps, Google Docs...

And who wants to limit our access to innovative
new services: Comcast
0 Votes
+ -
Without govt the innovators do get rewarded
otaddy 6th Apr 2010
Notice that Google or Apple didnt need tax dollars to innovate--they easily attracted investors.

But now notice the cable companies, phone companies and all the other govt sanctioned monopolies, they don't create a thing.

Without govt sanctioned monopolies in utilities, the market would decide who gets rewarded--not some govt bureaucrat.
0 Votes
+ -
Naive
easysoul 7th Apr 2010
You are either naive or a troll when you say the
market decides who gets rewarded.
The market in any commodity is rigged towards
whoever can buy the best lawyers, politicians,
etc.
J.Q. Public gets the short end of this stick.
0 Votes
+ -
NEITHER
hiraghm@... 7th Apr 2010
No, they apparently are more aware of history than you are.

Follow your own logic. Who's going to get the government granted monopoly? Who's going to influence the government into the very restrictions of internet content which those favoring "net (non) neutrality" fear? Only instead of one ISP controlling content, the government will dictate content controls, so switching between cable, dsl, satellite or cellular won't help.

KTOK broadcasts Liddy, Beck and Limbaugh because that's what the majority of their viewers apparently want to hear, and they want to make money advertising. "Air America" broadcast propoganda few people wanted to hear. But if you let the government regulate content, you'll get stuck with an internet nobody will want to use; out of boredom or fear.

Stop being afraid of the "evil" capitalists and learn to be afraid of the real enemy of Mankind; do-gooder socialists who claim a desire to protect their so-called "equals" from their other so-called "equals" by means of centralized power.
0 Votes
+ -
And notice how Comcast uses the government
still not nice Updated - 8th Apr 2010
...to fight tooth & nail to keep it's franchise exclusivity agreements intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Lobbying_efforts

But then all of a sudden it's "socialism" when some citizens fight back and demand the same kind of protections from government as Comcast does for itself.

But then, I wouldn't expect neocon Bushtards to understand that particular point of hypocrisy.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Five quick thoughts on the death of Net neutrality
efsane Updated - 11th Apr 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!!
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix