Network neutrality is a regulation principle for broadband.  It is the face being put on a much broader idea.

The public is being told that it is about keeping the internet free from service switching scams that might restrict users to certain providers or force them to use other providers, whether it is an Internet Provider or any subsequent providers. 

First, to address what everyone is constantly being told about Network Neutrality; it actually calls for broadband networks to have no equipment or mode restrictions.  That is a good thing because when new technology comes out that allows me to have 3D holographic interface games with 10,000 people around the world, I'm there.  However, there are no restrictions on this now.  Let me repeat that: THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS NOW!

So if Network Neutrality proposes to do something that is already being done, what else is it for?

The fact that there are no restrictions now can be seen in the rapidity with which we and the internet are growing together.  So Network Neutrality is like saying, we should pass laws that allow us to drive down the street, across town or across the nation.  We can already do this.  When I say that Network Neutrality is the face of a much broader idea, I mean it is being used to scare people with stories of provider switching and service manipulation.  In other words, to induce fear that we will be taken advantage of.  When these things happen now, they are already against the law or a law is simply tweaked to recognize it.

So since everyone is already free on the net to grow as we desire and are able to, and since we are already protected by laws from switching scams, what else does Network Neutrality do?  Glad you asked.

First, Network Neutrality will REQUIRE ISPs and other service providers to still support old equipment and modes.  So with the slogan of "Network Neutrality" Congress is attempting REGULATE the internet by bringing portions of it under the Telecommunication Service regulations. 

They plan to do what was done to the cellular industry.  At one point in the advancement of cell phone technology, everyone moved on to GSM (digital) and then UMTS (HiSpeed).  But the federal government required cell phone companies to maintain all the old TDMA (analog) so that those with analog phones can still use them.

So while the cell companies are willing to give digital phones away, they are still required to renew accounts with TDMA customers.

If you ever see a cell tower with it's antennas arrayed in three directions walk over and look inside the fence.  You'll see a bunch of metal cabinets that are bigger than refrigerators.  The biggest ones are usually TDMA.  As cell companies see this, the old technology takes up 10 times the space of the new technology, and they have to pay for the space and maintain the equipment that often only 1 person uses a month, while the new technology is handling everyone else's 200,000 calls a month. 

This would be equivalent to spending $1000 a month on a car that does not even run, while you spend $100 a month on the car you drive every day.

So what's the big deal?  So they maintain old equipment for a decade or so.  I have all the latest technology, let the slow people do their own thing.   Well, with only a few people using all that old stuff, guess where the cell company gets its money to maintain it all.  Yup, you and everyone else who is moving up the technology escalator!  Perhaps your cell plan could be costing $42 instead of $62. 

Network Neutrality – Strike one!

Network Neutrality also says to infrastructure companies like AT&T that even though Google uses far more bandwidth than most other internet companies, AT&T and other infrastructure providers cannot charge them for it at a rate proportional to their use.

For example; if I owned a woodshop and charge people $10 dollars to come in and use my tools.  Google comes in and stays there 24 hours a day, using my equipment to make a killing in the unfinished furniture industry.  Network Neutrality says I can only charge Google $10 dollars, just as if he were some guy who simply makes a birdhouse.

As AT&T must, I have to spend my own money to accommodate his increased production with a greater capacity and constantly upgraded equipment, forever.

Further, and more importantly, Network Neutrality support vlogs are not addressing its farthest reaching implications.  With the internet under federal regulation it is subject to further regulation.  Sort of like the FDA who regulates the processing and distribution of food in America.  The FDA has grown so much and people are so accustomed to it regulating the food we buy, it may one day tell us what we cannot put in our bodies.  Wait, it already does that. 

What have members of the congress been trying to do to the internet ever since Al Gore invented it?  That's right, TAX it! 

Like your telephone bill, what can be regulated can be taxed.

The first Internet Tax Freedom Act specifically put a moratorium on internet taxes for the purpose of holding off long enough so the internet could get strong.  Only after it grew into a monster did they intend to go after us, as though it is the right of government take money from us.  Personally, I'm amazed they had enough restraint and patience to pass such an act.  Although many have tried to let this bill expire, fortunately it has been extended and we are still free from most e-taxes.

A new bill has been introduced called (S.156) the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 that simply makes this ban on internet taxes permanent.  The bill has not been scheduled for debate and likely will not get even debated, let alone voted on.  The intention behind the ITFA was not to ban taxes on the internet, but to have a ban that would expire one day.

What keeps us from being taxed in the first place?  In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of revenue, decided in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the Federal Constitution prohibited a state from imposing a use tax collection obligation on a mail-order seller with no physical presence in the state.  In 1992, 25 years later, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the court reaffirmed the essential holding of the 1967 decision, that states may not require a mail-order seller to collect the use tax due with no physical presence.  This holds true for "all" types of out of state sellers regardless of the vehicle being used to sell.  (1)

Just look at the government fees and taxes on your home phone and your cell phone.  All justifications aside, it is still a bunch of taxes.  You can stay up to date with the following sites and others: 

http://www.cfif.org
http://www.nointernettax.org

Network Neutrality – Strike three!

And still there is more.  Ever heard of the Internet Society?  ISOC is an international organization consisting of 100 organizations and 20,000 members.  It's largely associated with the United Nations, and in close association with the UN World Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) which proposes a new form of government called e-Government.

WGIG conducted the World Summit on the Information Society with the stated aims of getting the internet to everyone in the world.But the answers in the two resulting reports were all about getting the internet under the control of an international government.  Their 2003 Digital Solidarity Agenda Plan of Action, and the resulting Tunis Agenda for the Information Society claims to assume governance of the internet for the common good.  But it claims governance of the internet nonetheless.

I'm not going to go into all the conspiracy theories.  Everyone knows the heart of the UN.  The Internet Society has commissioned reports for Congress and other nations to learn how the internet is functioning.  But while WGIG and ISOC may largely refer to problems associated with getting the internet to poor people, and protecting societies from fraud, all of the answers to these problems seem to involve methods of standardizing and controlling the internet and helping governments get money from its users.  While ISOC mostly reviews and reproves policies, information and opinions about the internet, its' recommendations involve constructing a legal framework around it. 

All one needs to do is read these organization's long winded reports.  ISOC released a statement on 30 October 2001, titled "ISOC RECOMMENDS EXTENSION OF US MORATORIUM ON INTERNET TAXATION" where it stated that ISOC "believes that taxation on use of the Internet would have a negative effect on its continued growth, and the Society opposes any form of taxation of this type."   

Let freedom ring brother!

But right in the same release they made clear that this is only a temporary plan until they have an appropriate structure that taxes the internet without destroying it; "Realistically, it will take time to reconcile the diverse range of potential and existing legislations and apply these to the "borderless" nature of Internet commerce. A continuing moratorium in the United States is a key factor in allowing time to balance the interests involved."

In other words -  a temporary moratorium on internet taxation.  Tax the internet, but not yet.

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) is one of the few organizations that has been warning us about these dangers.  They are obviously interested because ISOC has continually recommended that internet registry follows a global standardization under one international authority. 

ISOC refers to problems associated with electronic transfers of funds such as un-traceability in money laundering and other fraud, and potential problems with national and regional economic stability.  But the greatest affect of theirs and the WGIG's recommendations are fees and taxes.  How do they propose taxing a  Chinese retailer who avoiding taxation by going through America to sell to a Japanese customer?  A worldwide internet taxation authority.  Based where?  Switzerland of course!  What would this authority do?  It would require ALL internet transactions of THE WORLD to pass through it to finalize disbursement of all funds based on local, national and international laws.  The ultimate fraud prevention system?!

Obviously this blog does not address all the issues concerning Network Neutrality and internet freedom, but the main public debate is, I think, laid bare. 

I believe that a truly free internet can handle itself.  People and companies are solving transaction issues themselves on the net and the crimes that people commit on the net are still considered crimes and are still being prosecuted.  We don't need anyone, not corporations, congress or the UN to control the internet any more than we need them standing over our shoulder when we send a letter, walk down the street or buy a box of lemon drops.

Oh, and by the way, I still refuse to vote for any Republican who doesn't believe in all points of the Republican platform, no matter how much the compromised conservatives think he can win.