Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Freedom of Information Act
FCC.gov
Required Plug-Ins
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Freedom of Information Act
FCC.gov
Required Plug-Ins
Although those posting entries may choose to provide identifying information or may comment anonymously, anonymous comments will not be part of the record in this proceeding and accordingly will not be relied on by the Commission in reaching its conclusions in this rulemaking. The Commission will not rely on anonymous postings in reaching decisions in this matter because of the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of information in anonymous postings. Should posters provide an e-mail address, they should be aware that although such information will not be posted on the blog, it will be publicly available for inspection upon request.
A confirmation e-mail will be sent to you shortly, and will require validation for your comment to be submitted as part of the public record.
If you have any questions or concerns, please read more about our privacy policy below or contact newmedia@fcc.gov.
Privacy Policy: Although those posting entries may choose to provide identifying information or may comment anonymously, anonymous comments will not be part of the record in this proceeding and accordingly will not be relied on by the Commission in reaching its conclusions in this rulemaking. The Commission will not rely on anonymous postings in reaching decisions in this matter because of the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of information in anonymous postings. Should posters provide an e-mail address, they should be aware that although such information will not be posted on the blog, it will be publicly available for inspection upon request.
via Mobile: I want freedom in the internet
Right now to access the Internet is NOT Free and Open. I am a 73 years young Scientist 1. First one Must Pay a so-called Internet Provider, in my case Verizon, Not easy to do on Social Security, and 2. To Open a Site Under a Specific Name to Help Humanity, one Must Pay Web.com Hundreds of Dollars Annually. CAN You Explain How Can a Person like Myself access FREE & OPEN Internet in the True Sense of the Words without being Charged an Arm and a Leg in the process by Multiple Intermediaries for that Access? Your response will be appreciated. TY
Network neutrality haters are blowing hot air.
Proper enforcement of QoS standards can be easily implemented by following the appropriate industry defined RFC standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_Service
COMPETITION –
Telco and Cable TV are the least competitive – Legal Monopolies.
Figure out how to get REAL COMPETITION.
If we want real competition, the proposed regulations don’t cut it. They would make it so hard to be an Internet provider that no new ones would ever be started. We need different regulations that would help create competition. How about ones that stop the telephone and cable companies from locking other ISPs out of their local wires? Or ones that keep the telephone companies from charging other ISPs too much to connect them to the Internet backbone?
It’s obvious that we need some form of network neutrality regulation. As in any aspect of the capitalist economy, there need to be rules that prevent the dominant players from unfairly blocking competitors and limiting the consumers’ ability to select suppliers. But there is a risk. It’s essential that we deploy technology that will, for example, ensure that VoIP and media streams get sufficient capacity to deliver the required service, even if that temporarily reduces the capacity available for less urgent traffic such as web browsing or email delivery. It would be very unfortunate if the regulations inadvertently banned such technology. The FCC has to walk a fine line here.
I wish for the Government to stay out of our business. They should play back what they are saying. What they say and do surely is not in my best interist.
I want the government to stay out of this private business. The government has no right taking control of our speech.
Many of the posters here are misconstruing what Net Neutrality is. Boiled down, do you:
A) want corporations deciding what content you should be allowed to receive and at what speed/priority? Are you against any government regulation? Do you believe the “free market” economy should determine which corporation controls the services and content should be available because they “own the pipes?”
OR do you
B) want to be able to access any content you desire, all at the same speed/priority? Want corporations that own the pipes be required to treat all Internet content equally (and neutrally), and be assured that the government is in the position to mandate this neutrality?
If you want the first, vote AGAINST Net Neutrality.
If you want the second, vote FOR Net Neutrality.
Read the fine print. Don’t react out of your gut because typically you “hate XYZ.” Stop hating and open your mind.
“Net neutrality” like the term “Change” can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. I oppose government involvement in most things because government has no constitutional role to play, other than to get out of the way of the free market place. You must also take a long term look at governments actions. What we see today is not what we’re going to see down the road. The very essence of government is to build and control through its bureacracy and legislation.
Imposing “net neutrality” will kill the competitive advantages private companies have worked to attain. It’s time for this country to stop punishing its successful corporations. Instead, we should ask them why they have been successful.
Totally, totally wrong. Net Neutrality has been in place for the life of the internet and there is no government control; it is the most open, free and un-regulated communication environment ever invented by man.
It is impossible to discuss a “competitive advantage” when a company, i.e., Verizon and ATT, operates in a near monopoly. Both companies came from the Ma Bell monopoly environment and seem to prefer buying protection and locking out competitors rather than actually competing. That is their intent, to favor in-house web services and disrupt outside, competitive services, hence their massive effort to stop Net Neutrality. The ATT chairman last year actually stated emphatically that Google was making billions over the internet and ATT, which he saw as controlling the internet, wanted a piece of the action. That is abuse of a monopoly position and must be stopped, just as the government stopped the railroad monopolists, the oil cartels, and Ma Bell itself.
RCharles
1. Wireless consumers in this country currently enjoy an unprecedented
range of innovative devices and services as well as the lowest prices in
the world. Is it any wonder that US consumers also have the highest use
in the world as well? Why disrupt a market that’s working so well with
unneeded rules and regulations
2. All you need to do is flip on the t.v. or radio to see that there is
fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. This
competition results in greater innovation and motivates providers to
develop services, products and applications that customers demand.
Under the current regulations the market works for consumers. Please
don’t change this balance and hurt consumers by burdening the industry
with unnecessarily harmful regulations.
3. Companies who have invested in networks must be able to continue to
manage their networks to ensure the most efficient use of bandwidth
without these management network providers will be unable to continue
developing and providing consumers with the new quality-sensitive
applications and services they currently expect. The FCC rules should
not stop the development of cost-savings services such as telemedicine
that can save lives and that depend on a managed network.
4. President Obama’s goal of ensuring that every American has access to
broadband services is an important goal. Unfortunately, the President’s
goal cannot be met if net neutrality rules are enacted. Companies are
not going to invest in the expansion of their networks if these rules
are adopted. Please don’t stop the expansion of these networks and the
President’s goal of access for everyone by adopting unnecessary rules.
5. With the current downturn in the economy- we need to encourage
investment and job creation whenever we can. If the FCC adopts net
neutrality rules it will burden an industry that is investing and
creating new jobs. Net neutrality is the wrong idea at the wrong time.
Please reconsider any rules that will threaten jobs.
Robert, you are missing the point.
The internet evolved to where it is today under Net Neutrality conditions, at first because there wasn’t enough traffic or profit potential for the ISPs to bother with anything else and, more recently, because the FCC has had Net Neutrality guidelines in place for several years. (The FCC used the guidelines to challenge Comcast when it was throttling BitTorrent traffic).
But the ISPs have repeatedly threatened to alter service levels. A while back ATTs chairman said that Google was making billions on the ATT network and ATT wanted a piece of that revenue. But the ISPs have no legitimate claim to any value-added revenue; they get paid to run the network, period. The FCC is now proposing stronger language for the same Net Neutrality conditions to preemptively halt any ISP actions.
The situation now is that ISPs sense opportunities to stifle or block competitors, e.g., slow/stop Netflix so the ISPs customers are forced to use the ISPs in house pay-per-view offerings. Or slow/stop Skype or Vonnage traffic so the customers are forced to use the ISPs in-house, more expensive VoIP offering. The government has stepped in and stopped that level of monopoly abuse before, with railroads, with Ma Bell, with others. And it has to be done again; Verizon and ATT must separate broadband access from all of their in-house services, which can only be offered under the same traffic and speeds as any competitor.
Since the ISPs have already been investing with Net Neutrality in place, there is no evidence they will stop investing.
RCharles
ISPs will only have to alter service levels if regulations force them to raise prices or let bandwidth hogs clog their network. Both of which would happen if “network neutrality” rules are imposed. The proposed rules are not what is in place now, and they are not neutral. They favor big Internet content providers like Google, which has dozens of lobbyists and has given huge campaign contributions, at the expense of ISPs and of the public. Google already has shown that it has no ethics; it spies on Internet users, tracks where they go on the Net, reads their e-mail. We should not let its regulations be enacted. It would hurt everyone.
Net neutrality is simply a clever scheme on the part of government to exercise control over this electronic market place and media source. Government investment and oversight will only embolden the government to “control” the internet to suit the government’s needs and not the needs of the people. Consumer needs will dictate the direction of the internet within a free market unencumbered by government. Keep your hands off our internet!
“Net neutrality is simply a clever scheme on the part of government to exercise control over this electronic market place”
Totally, totally wrong. Net Neutrality has been in place for the life of the internet and there is no government control; it is the most open, free and un-regulated communication environment ever invented by man. The FCCs proposed regulations, to make Net Neutrality a clearly stated and more serious obligation, does nothing to change that; there is nothing in the Net Neutrality regulations that gives the government any control over anything, other than to deal with any ISP that breaks the rules. It’s a good thing.
The internet is the most powerful force for democratic communication the world has ever seen, and the course of its development will have huge effects on many aspects of the future. Turning it over to the same powerful moneyed interests that already control the majority of the flow of information would be a big mistake. If we really believe in giving everyone the same voice and access to information, we can’t afford anything other than a neutral internet.
Silly, and you think that they are going to listen to what the people want? Have they ever?
the internet is bigger than any business, or government for that matter. We are being called right here and now to preserve it.
I am totally in support of Net Neutrality. Greedy telecom/cable companies do not work in the best interest of their customers, and they shouldn’t be the ones deciding what services can and cannot be accessed online.
If broadband monopolies can control content, then you will only be able to access content providers they have agreements with. They can extort money from all major content providers, or deny access to them.
I want to pay for my broadband connection and access anything I want. Anything else will destroy the internet.
I have it figured out. President Obama ran on a net neutrality platform and received many donations from companies/people that believe regulated networks are in their favor. President Obama is “obligated” to get some type of regulation in force. Period. It will happen. Just hope the overall consequences will NOT BE TOO DEVASTATING!
Please make network neutrality a mandate. It’s for the good of the peopple, the average person that depends on the internet. The only benefit of a QOS modified internet will be the strengthening of monopolistic practices.
I’m strongly pro-net neutrality. Allowing corporations to decide which sites I am allowed access to at what speeds does not sound like a good idea to me.
Actually, allowing corporations to decide pretty much anything about what I can and can’t do sounds like a bad idea.
Net neutrality is imperative to protect the people and free access to information from greedy big business.
Apartment buildings are private property, but is it legal for landlords to forbid you to have certain friends over, ones who live in a competitor’s property, ones who have reformed after a crime, ones of a race they find offensive? NO! It is forbidden, this would be a horrible country if such was allowed in our cities.
Can the electric company choose preferentially who they supply power to? During a brownout, could they decide to keep the power flowing to a high paying oil refinery, chemical plant, upscale store, and leave your grandmother sitting in the dark? NO! It is forbidden, it would be callous to let people go without a necessity.
Can an internet service provider give preferential service to certain people, to access certain websites? Can they block a young aspiring engineer from accessing MIT’s free course books? Can they stop a doctor from accessing important information on a procedure because some idiot filter misclassified it as pornography? Can they force individual entrepreneurs from creating their dreams unless they first cough up a payment? YES! It is allowed, it is happening, and it is outrageous to let it continue.
Network neutrality is as proper a “regulation” for government to impose as any of the protections we enjoy when renting an apartment, receiving electricity or phone service, or operating a motor vehicle. We must have network neutrality.
I’d normally agree with the idea that government regulation could be anti-competitive. However, for most citizens in America, there is no competition. Internet has become a commodity, but it has been controlled by a very few, and they have hedged in and colluded in such a way that there is no competition. Each one a little monopoly. There’s been a town that got sued by a provider, when the town built its own infrastructure. Nobody I know has access to more than one decent provider, usually the VERY SAME people who also supply cable and the media, and have an agenda to push.
What if an electric company decided to shape the electricity so that devices that they didn’t approve of or were more beneficial to their competitor worked in a subpar manner? You can’t go to a different electric company (at least, not here in So. Cal.)… and likewise, you can’t go to another high speed internet provider either. Its whatever cable company has infiltrated your neighborhood, or stone-age 56k. They aren’t even really competing for customers because its more cost effective to keep off each others toes and sign exclusive contracts with municipalities / housing areas.
“Market Competition” doesn’t work when there’s such a powerful monopoly present. Either regulation is required, or things have to be split up in such a way that everyone can compete. The problem here is that the people with the power and the money and who control the media companies and can sway opinion with endless adverts… are the same ones that would be harmed by a level playing field.
I support net neutrality. Please keep away from our nternet!
The comments here *in favor* of net neutralility are misinformed, if not outright dishonest. Net neutrality MOST CERTAINLY DOES give the federal governement power over the internet, and is the first step in complete government ownership of the internet.
NN evades the fact that most of the *physical* components of the internet–the fiber-optic cable, PCs, including servers, etc.–are private property, i.e. produced by some individual or business, and owned and maintained by some individual and business. When a governement declares that an ISP may not priotorize some information packets on its *own network*, this makes it more difficult for the ISP to run its business effeciently and profitably, and this is ultimately detrimental to everyone–buniness and customers.
And government gaining control of the internet gives it the unprecedented power to censor it. Do you think the Obama administration does NOT know that? Do you think net neutrality’s promise of an “open internet” is NOT ironic? Do you think “newspeak” is entirely fictional? The administration’s goal is clearly to reach a day where dissenters against the left, like myself, will be silenced, while the left continues claiming to be advocating “openness.”