June 12, 2006
Net Neutrality : Who do you trust?
I've been hearing more and more about "net neutrality" lately. It came up often at YearlyKos (they apparently like it). To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to the issue prior to last week. Apparently, net neutrality comes down to a conflict between increased government regulation (which I'm generally against) and the interests of a coalition of huge corporations (of which I'm also not the biggest fan). Further complicating the issue is the fact that MoveOn.org is apparently taking a lead in favor of net neutrality regulation.
Jason at RedState.org has a short summary of the issue, at least as he sees it:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
A conservative-leaning colleague from a previous life emailed today and asked if I could break down the dicey `net neutrality issue in the simplest terms possible. "Sure," I replied, "it stinks." This complex issue has been simplified in recent weeks to this simple question: Who do your trust?For my part, I'm going to have to learn quite a bit more about "net neutrality" regulation before I form a strong opinion, but additional government regulation of the internet sounds, at least in principle, like a questionable idea.Do you trust MoveOn.org and their celebrity network tech experts including Moby, Alyssa Milano and rockers REM? Of do you trust every free-market and limited government advocate including think-tanks and associations?. . .
It seems there are a lot of questions remaining to be answered. Would this truly allow unelected government bureaucrats to determine how and in what manner traffic flows across the internet? If so, what safeguards would we have that "unapproved" speech wouldn't be squeezed out or throttled down by those bureaucrats? Is this the internet equivalent of "equal time" in broadcasting? Most importantly (to me, at least), why is the far left so turned on by this idea?
Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at
04:49 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Net neutrality is a fairly new concept to me, but it seems a slam-dunk as to why the left would be for it: it's "equal time" and "affirmative action" all over again. It's the government enforcing its own system of quotas and "fairness."
To the question you asked about what safeguards would we have that "unapproved" speech wouldn't be squeezed out, the answer is... none.
IMHO, anything that gives government bureaucrats more control over the internet is a bad idea.
Posted by: reverse_vampyr at June 12, 2006 05:12 PM (Ns5kk)
2
I wrote a long post to carefully explain this issue, but it was rejected by the blog software.
All Seeing Eye, check your email for subject: [MyPetJawa] An Intro to Net Neutrality
I've wasted too much time, so it may not be well-formatted for email, since it was intended for a blog comment.
-anon
Posted by: anon at June 12, 2006 05:50 PM (QcCiO)
3
Net neutrality legislation is completely unnecessary and would retard the further growth of the Internet.
High speed video on demand? Forget it.
Next-generation web services? Only if the FCC approves.
Staying online at all? Oops, now you need a license for that.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 12, 2006 06:47 PM (vhWf1)
4
Anything Moveon.org is for I am against.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 12, 2006 06:55 PM (rUyw4)
5
I don't trust either group. What I have yet to figure out is who would harm me the least. All the growth in the Internet that we've seen so far has come as a result of "net neutrality" and government ignorance. Now the telecoms see an opportunity to enrich themselves by "taxing" certain types of Internet traffic, via increased user fees. If you live in a metro area, you can always vote with your check book (change providers). If you live out in the sticks, like I do, the choices are "take or leave it." On the other hand, more government regulation stinks.
Posted by: olddawg at June 12, 2006 08:37 PM (Si1mC)
6
It will keep the large drums of ink in the hands of them that can afford it, as it has been in the past, before the equalizing factor of the net. Not to tell you what you stand for, but you are against it.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 12, 2006 08:45 PM (hckq8)
7
Here's the basic situation, in as small a package as possible:
The Internet was designed around a "dumb network" (neutral network, if you prefer) that knew nothing about the content of the packets crossing the network: the network's job was (and is) simply to route the packets that come across it.
I pay for my connection to the Internet, you pay for yours, and Google pays for theirs.
The long-haul network provider companies want to make the network "smart", inspecting the packets to see who they're from. Based on the company's decisions about those packets, they then want to get, say, Google to pay them extra so that you can get Google's content at full speed, as it is now. If Google doesn't pay the extra, of if the company decides that a given service is a competitor to it and won't even get the chance to pay extra, good luck visiting the site: it will be like using dial-up.
For me, it's a no-brainer: if the network providers aren't making enough money to cover their costs, they need to charge me the appropriate amount. Charging a third party just because they can (or can if they are allowed to, anyway) and punishing me if the third party doesn't pay (knowing the whole time that I'll complain not to the provider, but to the third party that's also getting the shaft) is just wrong.
On the other hand, this might be just what's needed to get a second-generation Internet (with more comprehensive addressing, better built-in security, and other nice features built right in) off the ground. A tiered pricing scheme could possibly generate enough backlash to overcome the built-in infrastructural inertia.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at June 12, 2006 08:57 PM (nDgte)
8
Sometimes people say that some decision made by some company about what it sells to whom and for how much "is just wrong." Whenever I read that or something like it, it sets off alarm bells. It's what I hear about "price gouging." Charging X dollars for gas that cost the company only Y dollars "is just wrong," or so we are told.
Moralizing about business decisions is just wrong.
Posted by: Constant at June 12, 2006 10:38 PM (4q2dc)
9
Without being a guru in all matters Internet, I'm inclined to keep with Medcalf's "dumb network". I've read a bit about this. Money may be (rather is) a motivator for improving any product, as well as the Internet, but I would rather they charge me for my access, because I'm the one who's going to get charged in the long run anyway. I would prefer to know how much I'm paying for what without wondering what hidden charges are in the cost of anything I buy. I'll stand up for big business when I think they're getting a bad rap, but it doesn't mean I trust them on everything. This sounds too much like government.
I vote no.
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 05:23 AM (YudAC)
10
I looked but Pixi has removed my size limits in favor of his own better scripts. If length is still a problem we'll have to check with him.
Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2006 06:48 AM (D3+20)
11
The telcos use the example of Fed Ex. Some mail delivery can be at the standard, "best effort" speed at the standards USPS rate. But some mail needs to get there faster, so it's worth paying more to send it FedEx. That's all well and good, EXCEPT. When I want to send something, *I* decide whether it goes USPS or Fed Ex. Without net neutrality, the *telcos* decide what content gets delivered to my desktop at priority speed versus best effort. Do you really think the telcos will give access to this high priority transmission service to their competitors? Do you often access web pages from Google, YouTube, CDBaby and others? If so, you may find that if net neutrality doesn't pass, in a year or two every time you try to access those websites it will be like doing it over dial-up, regardless of what premium speed package you pay your ISP for.
Net Neutrality is NOT new regulation; it's simply protection for preserving the current status quo of neutral treatment of all content over the public Internet, without discrimination of packets. However, emergency communications and urgent medical data can be exempted from NN provisions to allow for that data to go priority. Also, Net Neutrality would not prevent telcos from providing Virtual Private Network services (VPN) to companies who want faster, priority service and are willing to pay for it. With net neutrality, everyone gets what they want.
Posted by: Brenda at June 13, 2006 07:52 AM (vKhLM)
25kb generated in CPU 0.0355, elapsed 0.1696 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1607 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1607 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
