15 replies to this topic

[Hawk]

What is everyone's opinion on it? I haven't researched it much, but saw it in the news a bit recently and on other forums and I was wondering how others view it.

I won't bring in my point of view till later, just to let someone else bring up the first argument.

[Hawk]

Can you explain what it is so us lazy people can respond?

http://en.wikipedia..../Net_neutrality

[Ives]

Its rights to the individuals. I'm all for it.

[sonic]

Communism I say!

[Master Control Program]

Can you explain what it is so us lazy people can respond?

Net neutrality (in a nutshell) essentially means keeping the internet free of restrictions and out of the hands of the big, bad ISPs. The result of the "free" internet is that you have a freedom of expression, accompanied by prices being (relatively) competitively priced along with a few other perks. However, ISPs being the greedy, snot-nosed corporations dislike competition as it prevents them from having as much control and making as much money as possible.

It is my opinion that net neutrality should be protected, not only because it protects consumers and small businesses, but it also protects the quality of your internet connection. You see, by removing net neutrality ISPs can (and will by the influence of money) prioritize certain sites on the internet. What I mean by prioritize is that they will allow sites that pay them money to "appear" faster in the browser, while sites that opt out of paying the extra amount will appear slower. The end result could have negative effects on smaller businesses.

[Ives]

If it results in more government control, and the government decides to intervene for the sake of protection, thats where it crosses the line for me.

[chaoticguymike]

I agree with Athean, there is a certain degree where the government has overstepped its bounds.

But then again, wouldn't it be better for us if you look at it in a positive way?

[astrologically]

If it results in more government control, and the government decides to intervene for the sake of protection, thats where it crosses the line for me.

Yeah, I agree.
but I don't think it's ok for companies to do it either.

[Fatal]

I'm all for it, internet needs to stay free, trying to regulate it would just create chaos, lack of freedom, and probably increased prices from the ISP

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

The explanation can be boiled down to an example like this.

AT&T is serving pages slowly. Not because they're slow, but because they charge an extravagant rate to allow for faster speeds. Big internet company X can afford this service, so they get preferential treatment. Small internet company Y cannot afford it, so they are slow because they did not pay.

And I'm sure there's a host of other things they could do. Basically Net Neutrality prevents the death of the internet as we know it and the rise of the internet as just another big business fixture in society.

[Ives]

Odd, this topic is interesting now because Pearl Jam was recently censored by AT&T

http://blog.wired.co...dmits-to-e.html
http://arstechnica.c...eutral-net.html

Personally, it should be a market thing. Censoring the internet is bad and all, but the companies that don't censor it will have the most to gain (people generally like their internet raw). Government regulation is almost always icky.

Edited by Athean, 13 August 2007 - 02:52 PM.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Another example that I think will hit people a bit more...

Your provider could deny you access to porn sites (that they have no affiliation with) and charge you extra to view porn over their connection.

Also, if I'm not mistaken... some people are thinking a little in reverse here. Net Neutrality does not exist right now, so technically they could do these things right now. And they want to. They're lobbying against Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is actually more government regulation, so you shouldn't be saying keep them out of it... If you keep them out of it, companies can do whatever they want.

Edited by BrknPhoenix, 13 August 2007 - 03:13 PM.

[Ives]

Another example that I think will hit people a bit more...

Your provider could deny you access to porn sites (that they have no affiliation with) and charge you extra to view porn over their connection.

Also, if I'm not mistaken... some people are thinking a little in reverse here. Net Neutrality does not exist right now, so technically they could do these things right now. And they want to. They're lobbying against Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is actually more government regulation, so you shouldn't be saying keep them out of it... If you keep them out of it, companies can do whatever they want.

The only thing worse than businessmen are burecrats. What I'm afraid of is the fact that there would be a form of "FCC" that would do far worse to the internet than companies.

Hasty, preemptive regulation isn't going to solve the potential problem. Also, by throwing in net neutrality, the effect can be damaging to alternatives to cable/dsl (WiMax and Satellite broadband to name two.)

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

The only thing worse than businessmen are burecrats. What I'm afraid of is the fact that there would be a form of "FCC" that would do far worse to the internet than companies.

Hasty, preemptive regulation isn't going to solve the potential problem. Also, by throwing in net neutrality, the effect can be damaging to alternatives to cable/dsl (WiMax and Satellite broadband to name two.)

If only it was as simple as one always being good and one always being bad. Unfortunately it isn't. Earlier you said you support it because it supports the individual... However, now you say you support the company? In this case the company will be the ones against the individual, and the government would be against the company. Not all regulation is good, but personally I think businessmen and bureaucrats aren't much different, and I'm not exactly excited about being controlled by them either.

[Ives]

If only it was as simple as one always being good and one always being bad. Unfortunately it isn't. Earlier you said you support it because it supports the individual... However, now you say you support the company? In this case the company will be the ones against the individual, and the government would be against the company. Not all regulation is good, but personally I think businessmen and bureaucrats aren't much different, and I'm not exactly excited about being controlled by them either.

But aren't you forgetting that there is such thing as competition? That the markets supposed to work for you, not against you? By censoring the internet, people are going to leave the company. When you start making Fox News load faster than CNN, people are gonna be pissed. I have to remind you, 60% of all zip codes in the US have at least four broadband services, which accomodates more than 75% of the population of the United States. By censoring the internet or making one site slower than the other, people are going to change companies. The one that keeps the internet at the same bandwidth is the one that will prevail.

This isn't just hypothetical (like the idea of preemptive regulation through net neutrality is) proof that people prefer freedom. AOL rose to dominance in the late 90s because it began to woo its users with full access, more hours, and general freedom. It doesn't do this because the company wants to. They do it because they have to, or else they aren't going to attract customers if they were to start censoring shit. You don't have to think the corporations and ISPS are kind hearted to want that edge over their competitors, and preemptive regulation is only going to damage the market.

[xtremechaoz]

Im all for it