Quote:

---

Following the release of Google and Verizon's controversial proposal on managing Internet traffic, which comes less than a week after the FCC abandoned efforts at a hammering out a compromise, Tea Party groups have taken a strong stance on the issue of net neutrality.

Specifically, they're against it. The head of one Tea Party organization says she is concerned that the policy would increase government regulation and power, calling net neutrality one of many "assaults on individual liberties."

Chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation Jamie Radtke told The Hill the tea party has been increasingly concerned with the issue of net neutrality. "It's starting to get onto the radar now," she said. "I think the clearest thing is it's an affront to free speech and free markets."

---

Quote:

---

Why does the Tea Party hate Net Neutrality? “I think the clearest thing is it’s an affront to free speech and free markets.” Thus spoke Jaime Radtke, chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. Net Neutrality is an affront to free speech? Did I wake up in Bizarro World?

I don’t see how defending the interests of Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast (and other ISPs, of course) does us, the consumers, any good whatsoever. Perhaps these people have never tried to download a World of Warcraft patch using BitTorrrent with an ISP that throttles traffic?

Whose free speech is impacted there? Is the ISP “free” to throttle that traffic for whatever reason it wants to invent? Is Blizzard “free” to make available vital patches via the Internet, and to expect that you’ll be able to download it without interference from your ISP? Are you “free” to download said patch, or do your wishes play not part in any of this?

I can almost see where the Tea Party is coming from with respect to seeing the FCC’s regulatory powers increase. The Tea Party is generally anti-regulation, which is fine, so coming out against another regulatory agency makes sense from that perspective.

But really, to expect the ISPs to do “right” by you is laughable. If it could, Comcast and the nation’s ISPs would offer 1 mbps (down, mind you) and call that SUPER FAST INTERNET, then charge you $100 per month for the privilege of using it.

Again, if you want to oppose Net Neutrality, fine, go ahead. You’re wrong, but such is your right. But to oppose Net Neutrality in order to defend the free speech of ISPs is pretty laughable.

---

Quote:

---

Both parties announced, a few moments ago, the creation of a codified framework that they will submit to lawmakers in hopes of being enshrined into law. Many of the ideas are fairly benign, such as giving the FCC power to regulate the Internet a little more forcefully.

The framework includes seven main points: supporting the FCC’s openness guidelines; steps should be taken to prevent a so-called “tiered” Internet from arising on current Internet infrastructure; ISPs should be upfront to its customers how they handle their data (see Comcast’s constant struggle with BitTorrent traffic); making the FCC the sole arbiter when it comes to regulating the Internet; giving ISPs the power to offer “additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s FIOS TV) offered today”; the wholesale exemption of wireless broadband from any of these proposals or ideas; and to promote the idea that broadband access for all Americans is in the “national interest.”

Two of the five deserve a closer look: points five and six, those dealing with “additional, differentiated online services” and wireless broadband access.

To me, point five seems like carte blanche for the creation almost of a second Internet. The Internet you know and love, the one that has worked fairly well so far, will remain in palce, but ISPs will be allowed to offer “additional, differentiated online services” as they see fit.

So, you can subscribe to the ISP of your choice—provided you even have a choice, since it’s not unusual to see towns and cities with only one viable broadband provider—and be able to access the Internet as you do today. But, in addition to that, and destroying the very idea of an open Internet, ISPs will be able to offer, say, an “Internet Plus” option.

Imagine this pitch:

“Why settle for “just” the Internet when you can have Internet Plus? We’ve partnered with Company A and Company B to give you exclusive access to Web site 1 or Service 2? Sign up now today! Plus, experience lag-free gaming with our new GameZone+ feature!”

It’s the fracturing of the Internet before your very eyes.

And what about wireless broadband? You’ll notice that it was explicitly excluded from all of Google and Verizon’s noble talk of “empowering” consumers.

Is it too far-fetched to imagine a scenario where your wireless provider dictates what Web sites you can and cannot visit, or what applications you can and cannot download? (AT&T is already notorious for constraining what Apps make it onto the Apple’s App Store.) Should the proposals make their way into way—and you can bet Google and Verizon will be spending millions of dollars buttering up Congress to get their way, which is just depressing when you think about it—there would be nothing to stop them from doing so.

It’s particularly egregious when you entertain the idea that the mobile Internet will be “the future” of Internet access.

Yeah, it was fun for a while, but this does seem to be the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it.

---