Net Neutrality Is Vitally Needed, even in Cities

SImply this: do NOT hand the future of a healthy internet to private telecommunications companies to run as they see fit. They have already proven themselves to be only concerned with profit maximization, pure and simple. They want to stifle growth and competition, and have already tried to do so. Lobby money is no way to administer the largest global communication network ever.

I live a mere 10 miles from San Jose CA, heart of Silicon Valley, in Morgan Hill, and I am a mere 2 miles up a road from the main street in town, and I CANNOT get broadband. There is NO cable out here, NO dsl (apparently I am 50 feet too far away from the central switching station) and I have been relegated to dial-up for ten years. This is absurd, inconvenient and shows one not need be in rural Kentucky to be missing out on boradband. It happens in the cities as well, affordability is one key, availability is another. The government needs to apply its legal power to defining the next generation of broadband in the interests of its PEOPLE, and not the corporate lobbyists who are only looking for more money. The Internet is far too important for this.

I suppose this is a rant and not a new idea and as such I apologize. I am adamant the Net Neutrality law must be passed, enforced and written with the entire population in mind, rather than business and reelection money concerns. Thank you.


Submitted by Unsubscribed User

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

117 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Downvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Downvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Upvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 5 ]


  1. Comment
    Unsubscribed User ( Idea Submitter )

    Broadband should be available to you and everyone else everywhere. But this has nothing to do with the issue of network neutrality. Learn your facts before you post "a rant".

  2. Comment
    Unsubscribed User ( Idea Submitter )

    This post may make a one sided point. Kinda like political campaigns that are meant to lead us in a direction. Both side of the issue need to be considered. Basically once technology advances to offer broadband to these currently unserviceable areas then many providers will want in and then there will be choices for service which will lead to competition and good pricing and good service. I do see the financing and advancement of a single provider to at this time to service these areas because this will help lead to the technology and abilities for such service needs. After that it should be free reign for all those interested in also offering service.

  3. Comment
    The Federal Communications Commissi
    ( Moderator )

    Thanks for sharing your opinions on Net Neutrality. Chairman Genachowski is committed to keeping the Internet free and open. Please visit to learn more about his policy goals and receive updates on FCC activity on this issue.

    "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history."

    - Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC

  4. Comment

    Democracy shows it's true face

    "AT&T lobbyist asks employees, their families and friends to protest net neutrality rules

    AT&T's top lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, sent a letter to all of the telecom giant's 300,000 employees on Sunday, urging them to express their concerns over a net neutrality proposal under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission. Check out his letter and comments on the Actuarian Outpost Web site."

  5. Comment

    Wow, this person has been living under a rock, because I'll bet they can get ClearW're service just about anywhere in the Bay Area... especially that close to San Jose.

    When I moved closer to a main downtown, I actually had less choice BECAUSE of regulations that 'give' curtain areas to particular telcom companies. Verizon had 'rights' in my old location, and didn't in my new location. So I had to go from FiOS to Comcast business. Thankfully, because their areas to overlap sufficiently, they do compete and my service benifits/cost ratio was practically equal with Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS. (after Comcast stopped providing analog TV on their pipes.) I'm really happy with the options even in the suburbs of Seattle... the options are better then downdown Seattle. (because the Verizon appearently isn't allowed to lay cable in Seattle due to some government regulation, so no FiOS for Seattlites anytime soon... another good reason to say 'NO' to more government regulation. They should repeal a lot of regulation currently in place to 'fix' things.)

  6. Comment

    There is a great opportunity here to bring Broadband to the people who need it most, however government intervention is not the answer. Maybe we need to have the companies work with governments to find a solution that does not require regulation but encourages free enterprise. Our current telecom industry failed years ago due to intense regulation. We want to keep the innovation and bring new products to market. Ideas for the cell phone and Internet were around years before they entered the market, the reason they did not come to market sooner was because of the intense regulation out there. Let's not lose what we have, Internet is Freedom.

  7. Comment

    Network Neutrality is critical for the United States. Ensuring there are not "two tiers" of the internet is a matter of survival in an ever more competitive world.

    New businesses launch on the web, information, software and resources are spread via the web . . . and creating a situation where some sites are "more equal than others" puts the US at a competitive disadvantage.

    I find discussions about "Network neutrality" regulation would deter investment in infrastructure and prevent networks from being economically viable," a lot like banks saying that if we don't give them $2-3 Trillion over the course of a year the entire economy will collapse.

    Telecoms will invest in infrastructure or they will go out of business . . . Laws need to be put in place so that the internet remains a place where new businesses/websites can compete with the giants.

  8. Comment

    The Internet is one of the few equalizing factors in our world. It allows us to conduct commerce, share creativity, and form relationships with other cultures without the usual prejudice that is common to all society. The opponents to net neutrality would have us give up community control of something that needs to remain unregulated in order to grow and prosper. When it is under control of the telco industry then they will not only regulate how much content we can view, but what content we can view. Ever see an add for a CBS program on NBC, or any other competitor? Net neutrality truly levels the playing field against bias. The internet has a wonderful potential to nearly kill xenophobia which has torn our world apart since the beginning of man's time. We must not let the telco industry kill one more chance for peace in the interest of creating an even larger lower class.

  9. Comment

    Net neutrality should be a top priority for our lawmakers. We need to ensure through rigorous legislation that the unbiased, free flow of data remains as the sturdy foundation of the Internet. To do otherwise is to seriously impair the age of information.

  10. Comment

    Net neutrality is the only democratic option. Already we are witnessing comcast attempting to take control of our news, and our internet connection, not enforcing net neutrality will give comcast and other corporations the ability, along with their local monopolies on internet access, to control all of the news that a person has access to on the internet. We must have net neutrality.

  11. Comment
    B D

    Net neutrality would guarantee freedom of data flow on the internet without obstruction. Without this regulation from the regulatory authority, internet will come into the same kind of mess that the big financial institutions has come into without any regulatory oversight. These big corporations has no self control, no real interest for the common people and consumers. Without regulatory oversight, these big corporations will run internet down to the ground for common people just like the overpaid, "talented", "valuable" CEOs and executives of big financial institutions did to our financial system. I am all for net neutrality because that would guarantee freedom of data flow on the internet.

  12. Comment

    I live in a small town of ~20K people and there's *one* internet provider - Bell South/AT&T.

    Back in the 1990s, there were several dialup ISPs in the area; Earthlink, Bell South, AOL, Mindspring, Huntnet, and a few others I'm forgetting. The point is, in less than 20 years, my community has gone from 7 or so dialup ISPs to only 1 Broadband & Dialup provider - AT&T.

    My community has not benefited from AT&T controlling the only broadband in the area. There's been no noticeable improvement in quality or price in the last 10 years - and without competition, there never will be.

    Without net neutrality, I foresee an internet where there is no competition and the infrastructure is never improved, but subdivided into smaller and smaller chunks that cost more money to access.

    Please, protect the Internet from the interests of Big Business.

  13. Comment

    rrdon102, broadband - not sure who these guys are but it’s obviously they are CLUELESS or getting paid to troll.

    If the top tele-com companies can’t get it right then they should stop playing, it’s called competition. Maybe they should sale some of their cable if they can't afford to keep the lights on.

    Canceling Net Neutrality WILL NOT guaranty any more availability of services. But it will guaranty a price rise based on what content you are given ability to view. Canceling Net Neutrality will also guaranty the legality of filtering all internet content base on some else’s opinion of what should been seen. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

    Just because a company will get more money doesn’t mean they will spend it on infrastructure. If a company is already failing they most likely haven’t invested their money wisely and will continue not to do so…I can see the bonus checks for the CEOs as I type.

    Anybody who is against Net Neutrality is either not educated or is being paid to lobby against it. Plain and simple.

    BUT hey, you know all the frequencies that where just freed up. The ones that were used for TV broadcasts but no longer are. Hum, why not use them for FREE internet and have individuals wanting access to have dedicated "internet PCs" that will act as content hosts and DNS servers? A home would need the addition of a means to broadcast on reserved internet frequencies but who cares, after that the internet would be free.

  14. Comment

    Currently, the FCC does not have the statutory authority to promulgate or enforce "network neutrality" rules. (In its arguments that it does, it literally has to split a sentence in two and ignore the second half of the sentence to make its case -- a very weak argument indeed!) This is a good thing, though, because the market is already competitive enough to ensure that consumers will not be denied access to content which they want and which is delivered via legitimate means. The FCC should not be attempting to solve this "non-problem" but instead should address real problems, such as predatory pricing of "special access" lines and anticompetitive hoarding of spectrum.

  15. Comment

    I couldnt agree more!!! My cable company is rapping me!!

  16. Comment
    Nathaniel Robertson

    To the original poster and commenter - two things: this complaint is not about net neutrality (that's content restrictions) and it's a free market. Companies like investment incentives. For instance, when residents of Monticello, Minnesota made a plan to roll their own fiber optic service, TDS Telecommunications stepped right up and provided fiber service (25 Mbps, and soon to be 50). Full story

  17. Comment

    Have you tried

    There are 3 wireless providers that provide broadband connectivity to Morgan Hill.

    I will also point out that Network Neutrality could theoretically reduce the availability of broadband coverage to a location .... not necessarily increase it.

    Network providers should in general be allowed to recoup the cost of deploying their network by charging for access to it both from a consumer perspective and also from a content providers.

    In a recent report Google is said to consume 33% of the worlds bandwidth how about the idea that they start to pay for their proportional use. Judging from their market cap it doesn't seem right that the US tax payer should be financing Google.

  18. Comment

    I totally feel your pain and I think that the telephone company serving your area needs to put fiber into place to extend the reach of DSL.

    Fiber to the node would definitely solve this problem, because then faster speed DSL or VDSL could be achieved. It is possible to achieve 50 Mbps+ over a VDSL connection and this needs to happen in your area.

    I see that wireless may be an option in your area as another person said in their post and that would be great too, but faster wireline services need to be brought to your area and several other under-served communities.