Haven’t you ever noticed how the US regularly and consistently ignores international law in favor of its own? I have.

The same problem exists in the world of media. Movie and music people never wanted MP3s or any type of downloadable music but services like Napster changed that. They saw a large chunk of revenue being lost so services like iTunes were created. Businesses and most politicians only understand money and if we keep lining their pockets with the stuff then they won’t change a thing.

I say that we all starting pirating our content until a trip to the movies doesn’t require a loan. There is no need for someone who works 8 hours a day for 5.15 an hour having to shell out 9 bucks a pop for a movie when the star of the flick made 15 million for making the thing. I am proud to have over 700 gigs of pirated content.

1) VoIP (hello FCC) would require additional regulation in a non-neutral environment. At the very least, it would require definitions and exemptions for the sort of emergency calls that we can’t allow to be mired in discriminatory handling on the net.

2) Trade regulations (hello FTC) would have to define how much discriminatory treatment or outright exclusion would constitute an illegal barrier to trade with regard to existing anti-trust law. New regulations might easily be required to prevent outright extortion by telcos of these new fees.

I’m sure there are more issues that would need to be regulated in an environment lacking neutrality, perhaps with nonprofits, etc. However, a single law mandating equal treatment would seem quite simple. Proving noncompliance would be the most difficult thing about it, but that would be the responsibility of an aggrieved party.

These telecoms are expert con artists. They say that the best way to eliminate spam is to charge per Email. There are other anti-spam approaches, the simplest of which is to simply delete it. They just see spam as an excuse to charge more. Nor do they have a right to charge Website “shelving fees,” because we, the comsumer, pay to access them.

I think it needs to legislated that the big telecoms cannot eavsdrop, censor, or in any way intefere with the free flow of data, as described in the First Amendment. “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the Establishment of Religion or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof; or abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press, or the Right of the People to Peaceably Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.” Those are, I believe, the most important functions of the Internet, and with the “living, growing Constitution” theory, one could substitute “Congress” for ” the telecoms” and apply the entire thing specifically to the Internet.

The term “shelving fee” is a very good metaphor, and although there may be initial resistance by a lot of information suppliers initially, they should be able to use it to their advantage. The ability to buy preferential treatment gives a boost to the established, profitable companies by helping to erect a “barrier to equality” for startup competitors who can’t afford the fees.

The sky may not fall, but I don’t think this is a positive direction for the internet to take.

Actually, it has always been neutral until very recently. And besides, the phone companies have always been neutral. Why should the net be any different?!

“Government legislating against multi-speed services…”

This is not about ISPs offering tiered services to end users. Next time at least attempt to understand what’s going on before commenting!

Great!

ISP service providers (like Qwest) are joined at the hip with content providers (like Google). An ISP that starts limiting access to content will ultimately push itself out of the market. If the big telcos want to hang themselves with a rope supplied by Congress so be it!