Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am confused over this.

One side is advocating regulation of the internet so that there can be no regulation of the internet, the other side is advocating no regulation of the internet so that they can regulate the internet.

Who to believe? I tend to favor the proponents of the bill, such as Microsoft, Amazon, Goolge and other software providers and E-vendors because they are the core of the economic and intellectual thrust of the internet.

On the other hand, the opponents are the ones putting money into expanding the networks and physical access points around the world and I wouldn't want them to be hampered.

In the end, I believe that the net has the most potential to educate the worlds poor of any program in human history, at least since the phoenetic alphabet. I want there to be a level playing field. I'd be willing to pay a little bit more so that the poor could access the web and I don't beleive it is sensible to limit content and bandwith to those who can't pay for it.

On the other hand, the web is a physical reality as well as an electronic and surrealistic reality, so somebody has to pay for access. The fact remains that internet searches and usage take up real energy, space and time and need to be paid for somehow. The arguement that the poor should be given expensive access for free will link itself to questions like "If the web access should be free, what about food and health care?". By the end of that line, people will be providing freebies to those who are unable or unwilling to work for it and we have even more overbearing entitlements than before.

On a third hand, unlike the endless consumption cycle of free health care, welfare and food stamps - the web has the potential to teach people how to fish while feeding them. Health care, food stamps and welfare are a self perpetuating pit, but the web is more akin to school. It can help people become self reliant where the other programs fail. The web IS commerce and education. Simply using it creates value for all of us.

Gah. Help me. As of the last line I am in favor of the Net Neutrality act.

[CountArach]

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

I don't believe it is a specific bill per se, rather the specter of one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, the ISP's are the ones who make the huge investments in bandwidth, right?

Right now they aren't regulating the speed to sites; the whole problem is invented.

The net neutrality folks have invented a problem as an excuse to regulate the internet. And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them. The regulation, on the other hand, would make it much less attractive to build more bandwidth because they couldn't control it even if they wanted to.

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

CR

[Lemur]

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"

Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"


Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

I agree. "Regulations" of things are neccessary - excessive regulations are the enemy. We need to determine who is the bigger threat here, government oversight or the ISP's. They are both a threat. If the government gains a foothold over the web the way it has with the FCC over television and radio, we are screwed. Similairly if the ISPS begin to bottle neck information and handicapp lower income users we are screwed.

We need the web, we need it to be private and we need it to be all encompassing. Government regulation of content is the enemy, governemnt regulation of those who would monopolize service is necessary.

[drone]

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them.

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies.

Well, gee, if we got the government out of that then there would be less monopolies, huh? I don't see how you proving government intervention in the market is bad makes the case for more government intervention. I mean, what you linked to is a clear reason to keep the government out of the internet.

Because the government screws thing up.

Especially, especially, for an imagined problem like net neutrality.

And your second link is eleven years old.

Oh, and this isn't a bill, it's being imposed without any legislation by the FCC.

CR

[drone]

It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay.

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

[Whacker]

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies. The odds are you will have at most two to three cable providers for an area, usually it's just one. Your alternative is DishTV or Dishnet. Phone is similar but different. You will have one ILEC that owns and is responsible for all of the service to the area. You CAN opt to have other CLECs, but they still 'rent' from the main ILEC and it will invariably cost more, even though the fees and costs are regulated to ensure competition.

You are limited by sheer fact of how these things work. This isn't like buying a car, where you have dozens upon dozens of brands, and multiple dealerships in an average city that will compete for your business. You must pick one of the above, or do without. If all of them limit, then you are forced to pick one and go with that choice. Simply "abandoning" one provider isn't going to do anything.

We need enforced net neutrality IMO.

[MerlinusCDXX]

...

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?


...

CR

(content not relevant to my post edited by me)

Myself, for one, although, to be fair, in most areas it isn't "no choice", but, rather, a highly limited choice between two monopolies with approximately equal technological capability at the "industry standard" level, and various "technologically challenged" (non-) competitors. My example; I have the choice between my cable company (monopoly), and the phone company's DSL service (another monopoly). Of the "lower tier" options, I could use dial-up (horribly outdated) or satellite internet (which has horrible upload speeds and is ridiculously overpriced in this area.). It's like this in most US telecom markets that aren't tied to the Government, the financial sector, or the entertainment industry, but there are some exceptions for a few very large cities without the aforementioned ties. As was mentioned earlier about the choices most US residents have (in the quoted article), it's not so much that you have no choices, it's that, of the choices you do have, the only viable ones are with monopolies in their respective primary fields (telephone and cable). It's more an illusion of choice.

[Fisherking]

When in doubt, having nothing is better than just something....

Look at who is behind the measure. Google and Microsoft are out to gain something...is it in your best interest?

What do you think?

[Beskar]

I dislike how giving people universal healthcare in the opening statement is portrayed as a bad idea. I am unable to contribute to the topic because of that statement. So I am bowing out.

[Major Robert Dump]

The internet is not a truck.

[Lemur]

The internet is not a truck.

It's a series of tubes!

[Subotan]

It's a series of tubes!

I've known about that meme for ages, but that's a great video

I don't really know much about net neutrality, so I don't have an opinion on it. I think this is one of those issues where everyone says they're out for the common man's interest, when they're all actually out for Numero Uno.