MaineBusiness.com

Thanks for posting this Rich.

The one message she had heard from the other side that was simply inaccurate was the line "why fix something if it isn't broken?"

And the answer to that is that net neutrality is what we HAVE HAD up until September 1st, 2006. The internet grew up with net neutrality principles in place. This is NOT new regulation.

Senator Collins is leaning toward supporting net neutrality, but it will certainly help if folks contact her.

All her contact info can be found at http://collins.senate.gov

thanks again!

--Jon

Net Neutrality is good for small business as well as the average personal user of these wonderful services. Further, we must remember that large business relys on small innovative businesses. It is important to contact Senator Collins and ask her to support the Net Neutrality legislation.

And Verizon will do what - just continue to increase capacity and invest in the infrastructure so Mainer's can watch TV via the Internet. How is the infrastructure in Maine?

Do we even have the capacity to support the current trends.

It's as if capitalism exists to serve the "needs" of government and the people. It is truly a frightening theme. Somehow--only you should have unfettered access with out financial costs to the tools of your trade.

I work in New York frequently. It's expensive to fly--That's not fair. It hurts my business when I have to drive.

I agree with Dan's point. The times they are a changing and the internet is evolving at a pace we as a country need to keep up with in order to stay competitive in the world. Our internet infrastructure is lagging behind our counterparts and we need to do something about it.

A majority of so called net neutrality proponents are not looking at the unintended consequences sweeping regulations will cause.

But don't take my word for it. This editorial sums it up quite nicely.

"Creating new regulations is not the answer. With "net neutrality," a new bureaucracy would be required to handle the endless litigation these rules will cause. That's more taxpayer dollars to fund the expensive and unnecessary interference with the Internet. When the market and economic forces of competition are working successfully, why are we manufacturing a problem to fit this pseudo solution?"

This is why we at the Hands Off the Internet Coalition are against imposing
“net neutrality” regulations. The full editorial is available at
http://digg.com/politics/Net_neutrality_will_create_endless_litigation

These are NOT sweeping or new regulations!

This is what the internet grew up on!

Until August 31st, 2006, we HAD net neutrality.

Hands Off the Internet is an astroturf group that shills for the big telecom corporations.

Read more about them here:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=2007803

We are all just trying to put the internet back the way it has been before the big telecom companies muck it up.

And to suggest that people are using the internet for free is ridiculous. We all pay for bandwidth. If we use more, we pay more. The very few companies in the US that control the wires the internet run on want to charge people TWICE.

Jon, No one would be forced to pay for tiered Internet service, which would be a substantially different offering than what is available today.

Google is asking the government to give them this service for free, and if they succeed, it will be the average Internet user who will pay the price…regardless of the type of applications they’re using. I don’t know about you, but I don’t appreciate paying for something I don’t use.

Hands Off,

Again, it would be great if you provided your name. Right now you just appear to be a shill for the telecoms and cable companies. That's not true...is it?

What service is Google asking the government to provide them for free? Why do you talk about how Google will benefit from Net Neutrality, but not Verizon, AT&T or TimeWarner?

It's easy to see that some large corporations will benefit which ever way the final decision goes. However, small business will suffer w/o NN.

The "average Internet user" will always pay the price. We're paying right now, and we'll pay in the future.

What I'm concerned about is my and my small business clients' ability to be able to reach an audience when powerful telecoms--who we might compete with--decide what information gets preferential treatment.

You don't appreciate paying for something you don't use? You don't appreciate the fire dept. if your house has never burned down? You don't appreciate the police dept even if you've never personally been robbed? You don't appreciate the library even if you prefer buying books from Amazon?

Rich, those are public services and don't relate to the issue at all. Come on now.

It seems to be the trend for small businesses to switch to VoIP services because of the cost-benefit. Having a tiered system would ensure the connection doesn't break up. If all data must be equal, this cannot be guaranteed and could present some problems for the businesses (and consumers) that utilize this service. If upgrades need to be made to ensure this quality, you can bet we all will have to pay, even those of us who don’t use VoIP.

Bottom line: the tiered system will expand consumer choice...between cable, DSL and wireless and more technologies are up and coming, paving the way for more choices. This competition will do a much better job at protecting consumers and business than the government, which is usually a day late and a dollar short.

Dear Hands,

Again, why won't you tell us who you are? It definitely limits the effectiveness of your arguments.

The tiered system will kill consumer choice. You seem to be arguing that the only choice people care about is whether we get cable or DSL.

Whatever we may think about our gov't, allowing companies--with share holders to report to--to control what content gets delivered to us, and/or at what speeds, will kill competition. Startups with brilliant ideas will not be able to afford to bring competing products to market.

You're trying to frame this argument as Google vs. The People, when that's not the case.

I understand that Google and eBay will do better if Net Neutrality is reinstated, but that's not why I carry the NN banner. I'm on the side of NN because it helps small businesses and democratizes the voice of the people.

You're also trying to frame this argument as "the free market" vs. "bureaucratic Washington". That's also deceptive.

The true argument is "telecoms and cable companies" vs. "the Internet the way it's been." You're suggesting that because the companies underwriting Hands Off have laid the wires, they should make the rules and control access to the Internet.

Now, if you want to respond, please include who you are.