Nickname: Free in California

Review: Since when do the telecoms own the Internet (or the "high-speed networks" in question)? When did they buy it, and from whom? They didn't build the Net's backbone; they've merely parlayed their existing neighborhood presence (inherited from the old Ma Bell's monopoly days) into a choke-hold on the web access of millions of individual users -- and now they have the nerve to claim tht Net Neutrality would infringe on their so-called freedom! Let's retain our existing instant, unfettered access to all the world's great literature and other info online; if it comes down to a choice (by contrast), to heck with the "promise" of Disney-on-demand.

Date reviewed: Jun 11, 2006 12:05 AM

Nickname: x-man

Review: On its surface, the notion that telecoms should be able to recoup some of their extensive investment and pay for future innovation sounds reasonable. But what it really amounts to is turning over one of our most valuable public resources to private interests, without public oversight. It will give the telcos political influence over content on the Internet and a carte blanch to profit from the innovation of others. The number and diversity of private citizens, organizations, and commercial concerns aligned in favor of Net Neutrality should give pause to our legislators before they vote to give away what they don't truly own. The infrastructure, technology and value of the Internet was created by millions of private innovators and through our tax dollars and utility payments. The chairman of the FCC may be willing to act as an enabler for private interests, but elected officials have a greater responsibility to the public.

Date reviewed: Jun 10, 2006 3:54 AM

Nickname: Mark

Review: The Internet has become vital to commerce in the US. There's no good reason why the government can't minimally mandate Net neutrality as the Internet is involved with commerce. Moreover, regulated industries do not die by virtue of the fact that they are subject to regulation. Ever see a small bank or insurance building? As for the guy who thinks regulation will arrest the development of fiber optic cable networks, fiber optic is not prevalent enough to make a difference anyway. Even if fiber optic were more wide spread, you wouldn't see anything but homemade video on these networks anyway, since the RIAA and MPAA won't release content without the most restrictive licenses ever written. Nobody's asking for fiber optic either. This is a pretext by the ISP. Frankly, people are more concerned with restrictive iPod licenses than fiber optic. This is just ridiculous legislation that should nail the coffin shut on the Republican majority come election time. And I'm a registered Republican.

Date reviewed: Jun 10, 2006 2:27 AM

Nickname: Hurican

Review: Freedom somewhere along the way has lost its meaning. This whole thing runs along the same lines as the re-translation of the greatest religious texts to narrow the views and guide the masses. Big Brother has long been guilty of the same offenses as the church. This to me only further proves the point. To the masses, the Net is the last bastion of free resource. Playing favorites is a dangerous game in any medium, but I don't expect that we will be heard, at least not until the next revolution.

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 10:49 PM

Nickname: lefty

Review: The feds have some right to control how the telcos use their networks, given that the feds let the telcos have a monopoly on those networks. If Telco 1 decides to start selling MP3 through their corporate site, they could not let their subscribers access iTunes (for example). How many sites would you let your telco decide you can't use before you switched? How many telcos do you really have to choose from?

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 10:11 PM

Nickname: robert

Review: Telecoms own about 3% of the land they use. The rest is public property. Why should the government allow them to accrue more private gains off public land? Further, even if regulated, they will still deploy more bandwidth or wireless hotspot startups will eat away at their oligopoly.

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 10:07 PM

Nickname: scott

Review: Yeah, that's what we need. The Feds telling the telcos and the cable companies how to run the networks that they built with their own money. Do you want to see Verizon and AT&T bring their very expensive fiber-optic rollouts to an abrupt halt? Would you spend money upgrading your network if the Feds mandated the way that you will run it?

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 5:06 PM

Nickname: wants iptv

Review: The tech giants are the ones who have to spend money to make the Internet. They should be able to profit off of it. Everyone wants video on demand. They are trying to give it to us.

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 4:24 PM

Nickname: unbound

Review: Isn't it lovely that my representative isn't the least bit interested in representing me? I'm sure he's happy representing Verizon.

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 2:16 PM