Net Neutrality for Dummies: Will the FCC control the Internet? (video)

ReasonTV.com ^ | 11/23/2010 | Michael C Moynihan

[OldDeckHand]

Al Gore says that legislation ensuring "net neutrality" is "needed for the revitalization of American democracy."

Techno-vegan Moby says without it, the "egalitarian" Internet would disappear.

Even Mallory from Family Ties, Justine Bateman, thinks "the freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to the Christian Coalition is going to end."

But just what the hell is net neutrality—and is all that is good and holy about the Internet really imperiled if legislation guaranteeing it isn't passed?

Network neutrality is necessary, say its supporters, to make certain that all data on the Internet is treated equally and to protect users from information discrimination on the part of Internet service providers who will slow down or even block access to certain sites.

Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan takes a skeptical look at the growing push for net neutrality legislation and asks Peter Suderman, a Reason associate editor who is closely following proposals on the topic, why Moby and Mallory want the Federal Communication Commission, of all agencies, to regulate the Internet.

Approximately 4 minutes. Written by Moynihan. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg.

[Vendome]

Still about the same.

[Kackikat]

I was saying that I do not understand, unless it is like the Fairness Doctrine was in 1960s-1980s.... that everything was bland and uninteresting to appease everyone, but you say NO, yet others on thread say YES.

So I’m not saying anything, just trying to understand the point of why we are needing a bill for “net neutrality”, if in fact, that’s what we already have???????

[antiRepublicrat]

I was saying that I do not understand, unless it is like the Fairness Doctrine was in 1960s-1980s

It has absolutely nothing to do with fairness doctrine, period. It doesn't even target the right companies. Content producers, the online news sites, Free Republic, the blogs, etc., would need to be targeted by a fairness doctrine. Net neutrality concerns the ISPs, the pipes the content flows through.

So I’m not saying anything, just trying to understand the point of why we are needing a bill for “net neutrality”, if in fact, that’s what we already have???????

It depends on your ISP. Some have damaged the historic neutrality. Some have blocked VPN, peer to peer and de-prioritized the VOIP of competitors vs. their own VOIP. They also want to treat you the customer as a captive revenue asset, charging content providers (like Netflix, YouTube, or even Free Republic) to get their content to you (remember, you already pay your ISP to get access to that content). Remember that the Internet was built on everybody having equal access to the people -- the MSM's money can't really buy it any more access to the people than Free Republic. But if Free Republic had to pay $$$ to various ISPs in order to get to their customers (that would be us), well, that's not a pretty picture, is it?

So far some threats and stern words from the FCC has mostly worked to keep the net neutral. I'm happy as long as it does. But at some point I fear enforcement of net neutrality may be necessary.

[Kackikat]

Thanks for your explanation.