Original New York Times article (opens in new window.)
Imagine for a moment if your state passed a law that said that in order for you to use an interstate highway, you must be driving a Ford or a Nissan. If you drive a GM, Chrysler or a Toyota, you must use the 2-lane highway with a 35 mile per hour speed limit. If you were a GM owner, you would feel discriminated against.
The recent US Appeals Court decision striking down FCC decisions where it came to Comcast and other internet providers blocking or slowing down specific applications, protocols and providers in favor of "preferred" applications goes right at the heart of network neutrality and the open internet.
For many, the cable or DSL provider is a monopoly in their area where it comes to reliable broadband internet service. These customers really do not have a way of changing providers and even if they did, there's no guarantee that the new (corporate) provider is less restrictive.
REC recognizes that while there are some who use torrents for the unlawful distribution of television programming and motion pictures, there are many legitimate applications for peer-to-peer. While this is an issue, we are more concerned about the potential of additional restrictions involving an ISP's interruption of the lawful transmission of a competing or otherwise "non-preferred" provider. This should be a major concern to anyone who is legally providing streaming audio or video content, especially those who are using a major provider such as Live365.
REC joins with Free Press, Media Access Project and Prometheus Radio Project in opposing this court decision and we hope that further legislation is passed to promote an open and neutral internet.
Michiko Ota Eyre
Founder, REC Networks
