The A Team, (10/17/2009 3:00:19 AM)

This editorial fails to mention what will be regulated.

My understanding of net neutrality is that it prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Furthermore, telephone companies have received billions of dollars in public subsidies over the years to support network build-out.

Without Network Neutrality, telephone and cable companies will have a strong financial incentive to distort the free market in favor of their own content and services.

RDUN, (10/17/2009 9:36:06 AM)

The explosive growth of the internet has been due to its democratic nature. Ideas that are popular with users rise quickly to the top. Big business hates this model. It wants to control, control, control, like cable companies, cell phone carriers, and TV networks control usage. Net neutrality is an attempt to preserve the wildly successful, user-friendly nature of the internet against the efforts of big business to control it for their profit. This editorial misses on several points. It portrays net neutrality rules as imposing regulation on the internet. In fact, the FCC's actions would help preserve the current free-form, user-friendly nature of the internet by blocking strangling regulations imposed by the big carriers. Second, it implies that net neutrality would diminish profits by the big carriers. It just might; if the big carriers have their way, they will monopolize internet services and turn it into something like cable TV, in which they control access and price. But this would be a disastrous development and users will suffer. Finally, the editorial quotes comments of Gov. Henry regarding the beneficial effect of deregulation of the broadband industry in Oklahoma. Many questions should be raised about this claim: What were the regulations - were they equivalent to the net neutrality rules under discussion? If they were not, it is hard to see how this is relevant. And broadband has grown everywhere since 2002, so why do the editors believe deregulation was the cause of its growth in Oklahoma? In my opinion, the editors are wrong. Internet users will be well-served if the FCC acts to preserve the present user-friendly nature of the internet.

Mar, Tulsa (10/17/2009 10:30:36 AM)

Great let the government screw things up and prices will go up and up. Things are fine just the way they are.

Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (10/17/2009 10:34:13 AM)

The FCC has admitted that its enforcement of these new rules will be "discretionary." Discretionary, by its very definition, means "selective." Selective means discriminatory.

Bad, BAD, idea.

In D.C., it will take about 12 seconds for the FCC to figure out who the ruling administration's (Dem or GOP) enemies are and go after them to curry favor with whoever is currently in power.

Dangerous, DANGEROUS, idea.

WhereIsThought, Raleigh (10/17/2009 1:36:13 PM)

I didn't read all of RDUN's comment, but based on it's size, I assume he's for no bandwith limits. :)

Leonard Grace, Tupelo (10/17/2009 2:33:55 PM)

The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including, broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks. This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to; serve the underserved.

This is yet another dangerous road the FCC is attempting to navigate from a top-down regulatory standpoint, and could simply derail the original efforts to have success in the broadband investment philosophy it generated.

Here are the perilous implications:

Mandating ISP speeds on the front end of legislation could impede private investment from taking on the challenges of serving sparsely populated or lower demographic areas


Creating an open and share all approach for content access will again scare off potential investors who will be suspect of reaching respectable returns on their money


The burgeoning internet advertising market will be hampered, or even stopped, from investing in the very sector the FCC is attempting to help grow and prosper

These are the important issues related to recent discussions on Net Neutrality to be addressed, but need to be considered while proposing to regulate an industry on the verge of creating just the applications and services that consumers want with internet connections. My message to the FCC is; do not blow the very opportunity to let private investment create the infrastructure, content and applications which you have incented them to accomplish, by over regulating those companies into inaction.

It continues to be evident that the best incentive would be to take a hands-off approach to regulation while providing the capital incentive for the networks to build out their infrastructures. What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities. This has a negative effect on company stocks, shareholders, and the willingness of private investment to flourish, and in essence, get the job done.

The FCC should be promoting a healthy investment and competition environment rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach for the future of Internet access. This would create the (win-win) situation the government agency is looking for, whether it realizes the implications, or not.

th3bo$$, (10/17/2009 4:34:46 PM)

A better term for this discussion would be "Net Vitality." The current model of light or no regulation on wireless and the Internet has caused those industries to thrive while consumers have benefited from competition. The net impact of the FCC proposal will be billions less in investment and innovation will come to a halt. The net result will be a loss of jobs for Oklahomans and for thousands of others imployed in those industries nationwide -- an economic hit this country can ill afford at this time. I applaud Governor Henry for communicating his opposition to the FCC, and I say thanks to the Tulsa World for promoting Net Vitality over government intervention of the robust wireless and Internet industries.

Maddogg, (10/17/2009 11:36:19 PM)

Why is this needed? I haven't heard of anyone blocking any websites, and if my cable provider did, then I would just switch to somebody else.

It sounds more like an excuse for the FCC to tax the internet. If net neutrality passes then you can bet prices will go up to fund the bureaucrats that will be "protecting" us.

in3ruff, (10/19/2009 10:52:34 AM)

Its not needed! The FCC has had net neutrality principles in place since 2005 to keep Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Oh, and by the way those principles also apply to content and application providers.
I've got multiple choices in the broadband and wireless providers i can choose for service, the speeds i'm getting for both services continue to increase, and these services are more affordable than ever. Why in the world would the government want to screw this up???? I'm just glad the Tulsa World and our Governor are willing to point out the negative consequences that we can expect with the Federal Government's "help"!

Tom Amontree, (10/19/2009 12:51:28 PM)

It is the very pro-investment, pro-innovation policy environment that has fostered the growth and expansion of the Internet we all enjoy today. At a time when we are so close to achieving universal broadband access in our country, the new regulations the FCC is considering are clearly a "flawed" proposal. You're right that they are "bad news for consumers." Having the government take on a greater day-to-day role in the operations of the Internet would be an irresponsible reversal of course. These networks are too critical to our economic recovery as well as progress on health care, education and so many other areas of our lives to let this happen. The points Gov. Henry makes in his letter should be taken seriously in Washington. They represent a constructive path forward that advances the interests of consumers, innovation and our economy hand-in-hand.