Net neutrality finished in the United States?

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Zebodog: If I remember correctly communism hasn't really proven to be all that successful in the past.

That is a woeful comparison.

This isn't about Communism; this is about freedom.

[Knightscape]

In case anyone is interested here are a couple of articles against net neutrality.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/mcc...net/index.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/14778336.htm

[shamrock_uk]

Thanks for those Knightscape.

Can't say I agree with this guy much:

Network operators won't ever be able to use content as leverage to block or degrade the content their customers want because their customers would reject it, their competitors would pounce on it and the market won't tolerate it.

He is incorrect, see examples of this successfully happening above.

Smart is always better than stupid. Smart networks are better than stupid networks, and smart public policy is better than stupid public policy.

Bah, he's just hoping his readers will go "oh yes, smart is better than stupid!".

In actual fact, dumb networks are wonderfully simple and robust - it's the reason that the internet has been able to scale up so well from its humble beginnings. If they make the network backbone much more complicated, expect breakage!

And I've really seen no evidence of an imminent lack of bandwidth for everyone...

[ 06-12-2006, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Hivetyrant]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: And I've really seen no evidence of an imminent lack of bandwidth for everyone...

Exactly! and that seems to be one of their main argument points... And frankly, its damn stupid.

[robertthebard]

Ok, I already pay more for internet services than my mom, for example. I use broadband, and she's on dial up. I guess my thing is that even after reading the available material, I don't really understand what the goal is. Would nonpassage deny me access to the forums I visit, or increase the cost of my own website/blog, which I rarely use anyway? Will Yahoo be able to leverage me into paying more to insure that my website comes up on their search engine? If this is the case, then this is a bad situation. If I were making thousands of dollars a month through my site, then I probably wouldn't even notice much, but as a very low end consumer, it could push me out of existence, online anyway.
So far, I see this as a battle between content providers, and the pipe suppliers they use. The little providers, such as myself, are completely overlooked in the struggle. I want to know what it means to me, not what it means to Yahoo, or to Bell South. Should Bell South be allowed to "guarantee" a site gets hits because of the rate they pay? No way. That is discriminatory, to say the least. Should I have to pay a premium, above and beyond what I already pay to Cox Communications, to guarantee I have all the bandwidth that is available for my online forrays, be they message boards, or gaming? No, I already pay for that. Otherwise, I'd use dialup...From my perspective, and excuse the ramblings, it seems like allowing the pipe owners to set policy is a bad thing. Some of the more guru type of gurus should try to explain exactly what the limit on bandwidth really is, as so far, on the net in general, I haven't notice many shortages of it, except for the massive hits on a particular site for a download, but that's not net wide, that's a local shortage. Shortage may not be the right word, but extreme usage on one site will cause problems. Does this mean that the next time, assuming the pipe providers get their way, there is a shortage of bandwidth from a particular site, that they are going to step in and increase bandwidth to clear the bottleneck of data?

[shamrock_uk]

I think you're spot on RTB.

Which is another reason why the analogy with Communism is so off-target.

The wealthy currently can get a better service by paying more - I think this is as it should be! It's only right that we should pay more for a faster connection (dialup vs 8MB broadband).

That's why this really isn't about cost, but about power and control - and I'm a firm believer in it staying with us, the consumer. Consumer sovereignty (both on the internet and on your computer) is unfortunately being rapidly eroded by trends within society, of which this is merely the latest example.

[Timber Loftis]

I agree with Shamrock. We certainly don't want to take away the incentive to claw your way to the top of the economic trash heap and lord over your lessers.

[PurpleXVI]

You know what's funny? The only people I've experienced arguing against Net Neutrality and against "Freedom Online" happen to be Republicans. I've yet to meet any "Useless Euros or US Liberals" who want to curtail your internet freedom.

In fact, they're the ones who want to ensure that no one violates your freedom.com. There's more to freedom than being allowed to spend your money exactly how you want it. Like for example rules which prevent you from stepping on other people's rights.

Thank you for all that groundless racism/nationalism. How about an apology?

[robertthebard]

Once I get done being the fungus on the fungus of the bottom of that pile, TL, I'll start worrying about that. In the mean time, I need to be able to compete just a bit with the people that have the money to throw around. Causing me to pay to get a hit on a search, on Yahoo, who is hosting my domain, would equal me paying them twice for my site, without getting twice what I'm already paying for.

[Zebodog]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Zebodog: If I remember correctly communism hasn't really proven to be all that successful in the past.

That is a woeful comparison.

This isn't about Communism; this is about freedom. [/QUOTE]Communism...Maoism...Stalinism...take your pick.

The state (read: government) is determining your needs for you. I agree it's about freedom as well, but by regulating everyone to the same level you're taking the first steps to a repressive state by smothering your personal freedom.