http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3081/not_neutrality/

As for some of “HOTI”s recent commentary, I unfortunately do not have a lot of time to deal with a point by point analysis of his latest statements here (though I again refer to quite numerous postings already provided on this topic throughout the USTV site). More immediate needs are unfortunately calling at this moment, due to the urgent nature battle taking place right now in Ohio due to Senate Bill SB 117. This is the one created by and for one of HOTI’s main sponsors, AT&T, and is designed to eliminate public, educational and government television throughout the state of Ohio. They also want to eliminate build-out provisions for new broadband and video technologies, creating an ever-increasing digital divide in our society, and to top it off, eliminate yet more governing sovereignty for local communities. All par for the course for the corporate game plan, which is what their work at HOTI is about legitimizing and propagating. As I have intimated through my previous discourse on this, understanding what the political nature and purpose of an organization is, will help one understand what the real results that they are pursuing are, whether it is clearly stated (or even consciously intended) or not.

Had I included the link before, you would have been able to read more, particularly comments that address your question of what customers would lose out on potential benefits should Congress enact net neutrality legislation,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html

“Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient’s heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.

Pricing raises similar issues. To date, Internet pricing has been relatively simple. Based on experience in similar markets, we expect that, if left alone, pricing and service models will probably evolve. For example, new services with guaranteed delivery quality might emerge to support applications such as medical monitoring that require higher levels of reliability than the current Internet can guarantee. Suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services.”

Additionally, you miss my point that there is a significant difference between “net neutrality” (the various definitions from various proponents and interest groups) and net neutrality legislation that has been proposed and is extremely restrictive. Hands Off the Internet has always endorsed the four principles of net neutrality: Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” However, as I said, and as Farber and Katz mention proposed legislation goes way beyond ensuring these principles.

Or we can try another rather knowledgeable source, the “father of the internet” Robert Kahn,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

“Kahn rejected the term ‘Net Neutrality’, calling it ‘a slogan’. He cautioned against dogmatic views of network architecture, saying the need for experimentation at the edges shouldn’t come at the expense of improvements elsewhere in the network.

(Kahn gently reminded his audience that the internet was really about interconnecting networks, a point often lost today).

‘If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it’s not going to be on anyone else’s net. You want to incentivize people to innovate, and they’re going to innovate on their own nets or a few other nets,’”

We at HOTI share these concerns because yes poor “net neutrality” legislation and regulations will affect everyone and not in a positive way. There is no attempt to confuse anyone and if doubt is raised it is possible this is due to people can understanding and agreeing with the arguments made by people like Bennett, Katz, Farber, Kahn and many more.

I find “HOTI”’s claims here and use of debate to be rather similar to the same straw man techniques and tactics used by those trying to discredit the case for global warming.

Notice the absolutism and the extremity of the questions such as “Can you attempt to discredit every single opponent of net neutrality?” and “Do you completely discount the warnings of Richard Bennett (whom I referenced above) and most of the senior network engineers other than Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee?”

This is like those who work to discredit global warming studies, who want to question the validity of the entire issue because it is impossible to study and predict every factor involved in it. Talking about changing the issues of the debate? That is exactly HOTI and his patrons who pay him to propagate these questions are trying to do.

I, of course, do not completely discount the warnings regarding Net Neutrality policy as elaborated on by Richard Bennett, or ignore the fact that Berners-Lee has questioned proposals for how to implement provisions for Net Neutrality. The debate over how to design well-crafted and effective policies for protecting the principles of Net Neutrality is a legitimate issue which has some important differing perspectives.

However, HOTI and their corporate patrons infuse doubts and questions and encourage dissension in this debate, not because they are concerned about the implementation of poorly designed Net Neutrality protections, but because they are against the very principle of Net Neutrality itself.

Like the global warming debate, the effort here is to sow as much confusion, doubt and skepticism as to render meaningful action to confront the issue impossible. By pointing out differences in the legitimate debate over the best way implement Net Neutrality protections, astroturfers like HOTI work to conflate that debate as being one over whether it should even be done. The reason these entities, whether it be ExxonMobil or AT&T to keep the issue from being honestly discussed, is because in an open, honest and informed debate, their true motivation will be seen for what it is. Pure, short term profit seeking greed, regardless of the cost and damage it does to anyone and everyone else in society. In corporate accounting, which is all they measure anything by, those costs to the rest of our society are called externalities.

“HOTI” and his/her sponsors have an agenda, and that is to obtain commercial (and knowing AT&T’s secret and illegal involvement with elements of our national security state, also political?) control over the internet, what is on it and how people can access information on it. “HOTI” lays out some arguments that can sound reasonable on the surface, but beg for greater clarification.

“Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender’s willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.

Increase the value for customers? What customers is he referring to here? The ones that pay AT&T protection money to rig the market for their own benefit? That is exactly what they are talking about her. Of course, a large company that paid protection money to the feudal land baron who controlled the commons of the internet, in order to give them and their business preferential treatment, yes of course the value of the internet would increase for them. What it does is say there is no level playing field, as currently exists, on the internet for all users. What it says is the playing field itself is for sale, and only the biggest will benefit, at the expense of everyone else (which is probably like 95% of you reading this right now).

As the Savetheinternet.com coaltion recently reported…

Small businesses, bloggers, hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum, the founders of the Internet and the World Wide Web, and millions of concerned citizens want Net Neutrality reinstated so that the Internet remains a vibrant, open environment for free speech, democratic participation and economic innovation. Millions more will join them as they learn about what’s at stake: the free and open Internet as we know it.

But as the Wall Street Journal reports, the Republicans on the FCC seemed to doubt whether this threat is real. But they need look no further than the statements made by the heads of the nation’s biggest telephone and cable companies. They’ve announced their plans to discriminate, to put toll booths on the information superhighway. We take them at their word.

Regarding dealing with the ‘issues’ and the substance behind the debate over Net Neutrality, we at USTV have not been avoiding anything in that regard, as evidenced if you take the time to read through postings over the years on our website, particularly in the Media and Democracy section. Though in dealing with such entities as HOTI, it might be more appropriate to investigate Deconstructing The Media.

As for ‘attacking’ “HOTI” and his organization, I would argue that it hardly constitutes an ‘attack’ to point out just who the sources of information in a ‘debate’ are, in order to better understand what their true motivations and agenda involve. It places the information provided to you the citizen, from groups like HOTI, into a more accurate context, in which you can draw your own conclusions as to the importance and veracity of the their perspectives. These sources represent themselves as impartial, citizen interests groups, when they are hardly that. HOTI’s patrons are extremely vested and are looking to rake in BILLIONS, and establishing permanent ownership control over the flow of information on the internet. It is not ‘attacking’ them to point this truism out.

If it is true you can judge a person by the company they keep, then perhaps it is important to understand who the company that “Hands Off The Internet” keeps. (Or would it be more appropriate to refer to them as the companies that keep HOTI?)

For one example, you will find an influential group that “HOTI” mentions are behind supporting his/her organization and their agenda is Citizens Against Government Waste. You may find some of the resources behind them interesting as well. Michael Smith at O’Reilly Net did an insightful piece on them as well, asking You know “Citizens Against Government Waste” is a corporate front group, right? CAGW have also been extensively involved in lobbying on behalf of advocating what is in essence the practice of slave labor in the Marianas, and were behind helping Tom DeLay and Jack Abramhoff derail federal investigations of the criminal business activities of their corporate partners in the continued maintenance of those practices.

Several months later, the National Center’s name appeared in another Saipan Tribune article. This time, Ridenour’s group was supporting a coalition of Marianas garment manufacturers who bemoaned U.S. efforts to impose tighter labor laws.

Ron Sablan, chairman of the Western Pacific Economic Council trade group, lauded Ridenour’s group. RAW STORY has discovered that Sablan also praised three other nonprofits, two of which would later work with Abramoff on Indian gaming issues.

“Fortunately with the help of our public affairs firm others have joined to argue against this intrusion into our economic sustenance. The Americans for Tax Reform, the Council with Citizens Against Government Waste, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the National Center for Public Policy Research supported the WPEC’s stance,” Sablan said.

Americans for Tax Reform, led by conservative maven Grover Norquist, is already under scrutiny in the Abramoff scandal. ATR got $25,000 at Abramoff’s direction from an Indian tribe to set up a meeting with Bush. The Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, was paid $25,000 at Abramoff’s instruction to lobby on Indian gaming in 2000.

You can read more about it Here.

For more on the issue of Net Neutrality and creating good policy in support of it, check out the work of the Center For Digital Democracy.

Yes, AT&T is one of our member organizations along with Citizens Against Government Waste, the National black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and others. If I were indeed a “troll” I surely wouldn’t have explicitly stated my affiliation.

Do you completely discount the warnings of Richard Bennett (whom I referenced above) and most of the senior network engineers other than Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee? On a side note, why is it that Berners-Lee refuse to endorse any of the proposed “net neutrality” legislation? Likely because it is even more far reaching than what he is calling for. For example, Dorgan-Snowe’s first effect would be to freeze the broadband marketplace exactly where it is, disallowing not just theoretical abuses but new innovations, too. Also, Vint Cerf has said,

“”If we are not successful in our arguments, then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justice’s antitrust division.”

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/google_neutrality.html

This highlights the fact that nobody has effectively argued that current laws are insufficient to deal with any possible market abuses that could potentially arise in the future.

As I said senior network engineers, such as the David Farber and Michale Katz who are warning,

“Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender’s willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.

Public policy should intervene where anti-competitive actions can be identified and the cure will not be worse than the disease. Policymakers must tread carefully, however, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in advance whether a particular practice promotes or harms competition. Antitrust law generally takes a case-by-case approach under which private parties or public agencies can challenge business practices and the courts require proof of harm to competition before declaring a practice illegal. This is a sound approach that has served our economy well.”

Again, you can think what you want of me and HOTI, but that doesn’t change the issues of this debate.

As is often said, if you want to understand the real purpose behind something, follow the money.

You think the Internet will always be the great freewheeling information superhighway you’ve grown to love?  Well, think again.  Media giants want to privatize our Internet. 
 
Telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress for the right to control where you go on the Internet, how fast you get there, and how much you pay for the service…. Read more on this Here

It is interesting to find who is paying apparatchiks like this to leave messages like the one above so kindly provided for us here.

For more on this, check out one of “Hands Off The Internet’s” Big Lies of the Week, as well as a good piece on how AT&T Plays Hardball With Astroturfs.

Of course, the USTV site here has numerous articles and reference information included throughout our site on the nature and importance of Network Neutrality as well, which we invite you to check out for more on this vitally important topic.

“Aside from their use of pidgin English (”the current status quo of prohibiting…from charging”, “critical issues of the net neutrality,” “has become a subject under fierce debate,” “a majority are better off, a minority is worse off”) the authors embarrass themselves with a wholly nonsensical definition of the terms of the debate. As Scott Cleland points out, if net neutrality really were the status quo, legislation would not be needed simply to preserve it.

In fact, net neutrality legislation seeks to create a new status quo where light users of Internet subscription services are required to subsidize heavy users, and where telecommunications companies would be prohibited from offering non-Internet-based IPTV services unless competitors could access their private IPTV facilities for free (where “free” means for no additional charge beyond what they pay for Internet service today.)

Verizon and AT&T offer IPTV services today, so this is clearly not a question of preserving the status quo.

The professors jump through hoops in order to “prove” that light users should be required to subsidize heavy users, and then baldly assert that the only difference between 10 Megabit Ethernet on fiber (10Base-FL [sic]) and Gigabit Ethernet is at the transceiver level. No dudes, not even close: system interfaces, buses, and MAC controllers have to be re-engineered to run faster, and distances suffer.”

http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2007/03/12/net-neutrality-in-broken-english-and-bad-logic/