A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

Net Neutrality and HB 6456

by: InterrupT

Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 12:42:23 PM EST

(From the diaries - promoted by matt)

With net neutrality once again being talked about, I thought I should give my 2 cents about it.

With HB 6456 passing the Michigan House there has been a lot of talk about passing a bill statewide enforcing net neutrality. This is a good first step, and it sends a message but really it doesn't stop a two tiered internet. What passing a net neutrality bill in Michigan would do is it wouldn't allow any two tiered system equipment in the state. Information sent and received within the state would be treated by the telecoms as equals. However, a neighboring state may not have net neutrality on the books and therefore could cripple the traffic coming from that state. If such a thing were allowed to happen, a few states without net neutrality would effectively create a two tiered system for the entire country.

Since the Internet has no set path from point A, the server the data is stored on, and point B, the user, any kink in the system could cripple the entire system. If a switch or router your data goes through on the way to your computer is in a state that doesn't have net neutrality it could be slowed at that point eliminating the neutral net work in a state with net neutrality.

Even if every state had net neutrality on the books, but there was not national net neutrality law, the telcos could still create a two tiered system for information going into and out of the country, not to mention data crossing state lines. Each state would have different guidelines as to what passes as a neutral network which would create loopholes large enough to drive a semi-truck through.

Net neutrality is a very important issue that must be taken on at the national level to be truly effective. Passing net neutrality bills in states is a good first step, it sends a very important message to Washington.

So the question could be asked then, why would Google raise such a fit over HB 6456? Well quite simply for what is going on right now. Net neutrality is an important issue again. People are talking about it, people are getting mad over it. If Google succeeded in getting net neutrality added to the bill it would be a huge victory for them. They would have somewhat of a blueprint as to how to take the issue to other states and to Washington, their ultimate goal. They would send a very important message to the Telecom companies that the American people want a neutral network and they now have the means to fight back.

A bill allowing multiple video services in Michigan could actually help keep the Internet stay neutral. If either Comcast or AT&T decided to go to a two tiered internet, there would be a mass exodus from that service to the competing service. If that service went to a two tiered system, users would move to a third service. This would continue as the large telcos made their move to a two tiered system. We would see an increase in local ISPs again. Once the telcos got it through their greedy little heads that people are unwilling to pay for a services that cripples most of the internet they will drop this stupid idea of a two tiered system.

P.S. Also keep in mind AT&T already offers internet in Michigan. And the proposed upgrades to the system in order to offer video services as well, would actually make their internet offerings faster. Also the goal of this bill is to open up competition in video services, not just allow AT&T to operate.

My point of this post is to say that net neutrality is much, much bigger than just this HB 6456. We cannot forget that, and therefore we need to focus our efforts on the issue rather than just on this bill.

Cross-posted at

InterrupT :: Net Neutrality and HB 6456
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Thank you for elaborating.
I also agree it is a much, much bigger issue than just HB 6456.  Having said that, should we oppose, support or simply not care about HB6456?  It sounds as if it would be helpful if it passed.  If so, who is the group that is opposing it, and why do they oppose it?  Do you have a Chapter 2 to your story?

Check out my new post
I wrote a new post to answer some of your questions.


[ Parent ]
In the interest of transparency
do you have any interests in the passage of this bill?

In other words, are you connected in any way with anyone who might benefit from this bill.

You seem very informed and if you would benefit, it seems only fair if you would say so, if not, you can avoid anyone suggesting that you do...

Good Question
I  am on the fence about this bill, but I think I would fully support this bill if it included provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts.

One of the reasons I am so interested in this bill is because I am getting sick and tired of Comcast.  I hate their customer service, their internet is cranky, they cost to much, and they don't have HD in my area.  It wouldn't be so bad if either of the satellite companies had a good signal in my area, but they don't.  Also IPTV is something that is pretty interesting to me, even though I was against it when Microsoft was pushing it.  But to be fair I am really against just about  everything Microsoft and when they were pushing it the technology wasn't very far along.

I do understand most of the issues in this bill because I had all this telecom law and  the workings of the internet drilled into me over and over for 4 years while I was a telecommunications major at MSU.  And well, I am a bit of a tech geek as well.

To be honest,  I am not a big fan of either of the big Telecom companies that come up when this bill is talked about, Comcast and AT&T, but I think direct competition between to two could help make both companies more consumer friendly.

I'm not saying anybody should be for or against this bill, there just has been a lot of talk about it right now and I thought a little bit more background information would help the discussion.  As I was writing these posts I wondered if it would sound like I was asking everyone to support this bill, but that is not what I am doing. 

With all that being said, I actually make money making local cable commercials to be played on Comcast cable, so as far as my wallet is concerned it might actually cost me a few cable commercials that I might have made.  I see the trade off though as out weighing losing a few commercials.

[ Parent ]
Thank you
And thank you for your information

[ Parent ]
Lansing State Journal has a Editorial on this Bill
Today...12-4-06 here: http://www.lsj.com/a...

I do not trust this bill.  Anything the Communication Companies want I am real leery of.  Go and post a comment on the LSJ site if you want.  I did.  It is so addicting..haha

Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I WANT MY HABEAS CORPUS BACK!!

There are a lot of interesting things you can do on internet, I recently read on a forum you can make a Criminal Check for any person, I tried it and in 60 seconds I had the results. Internet neutrality is a problem discussed every year and every time there are people ready to defend companies interests and don`t care about millions of people that could suffer from this. How can I open an on-line business if I don`t have any clients and no matter what I do my web page won`t appear on Google or Yahoo?

Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
- MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

- Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
- A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
- Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)

MI Campaigns:
MI Democratic Orgs:
MI Progressive Orgs:
MI Misc.:
National Alternative Media:
National Blogs:
Powered by: SoapBlox