Posted on 10/27/2009 9:25:43 AM PDT by steve-b
Edited on 10/27/2009 9:33:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
For all of the hype going on over the FCC's proposed rules about Network Neutrality, it really comes down to a few very short, common sense rules.
What is "Network Neutrality"?
In short, the rules would force Internet Service providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic equally, period. For such a complex-sounding name, it really is quite a simple concept.
Isn't this a recipe for disaster?
>> What are the rules?
Nobody who actually reads the rules can reasonably be against them. They are short and to the point: equal rights for bytes. Although some people are voicing concerns over onerous regulations and government bureaucracy, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the rules can fit onto a single printed page. They are:
Content
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet...<<
hmmmm..
So what? This happens to every single day in any corporate IT Telecom shop. Also, when you sign the contract I'm sure its in the fine print. If not, then I'm sure there would be millions of lawsuits by now.
They can get this delay if they slow down certain types of traffic. The problem is this is not what they sold you when you purchased their "unlimited Internet", is it?
Then you either complain, sue or get another provider. We don't need the government regulating bandwidth. It will be a total disaster.
Answer: GET ANOTHER PROVIDER THAT WILL. The telecom/broadband market is one of the most competitive there is.
Yeah! I'm signing up with the other cable company!
What's that? You, in the back? There is no "other cable company"? Something about a "government-granted monopoly franchise"...?
Does this mean I can run a webserver on my DSL line now?
It's called QOS. It is employed on almost every network by one device or another.
Without these rules, ISPs can sell preferential treatment to the highest bidder, or even actually slow down traffic to competitors. For example, a large search engine could conceivably pay an ISP to slow down the searches of their competitors. We could see this exact same scenario for e-commerce sites. End users would never know it is happening; they would simply think that provider A has some really fast servers and provider B needs to get their act together.
Did the person who wrote this article know even attempt to find out if this was true? Savvy endusers will know exactly what is going on by employing a few simple network tests and comparing them with other users on sites such as speakeasy.net. Then they will abandon ship for another provider that is not playing games with their bandwidth.
The regulation of everything by the Government is what is being attempted here. The demonization of corporations is on big time. Big Pharma, Big Car Makers, Wall Street, now Big Telecom.
Net-neutrality is the government sticking its toe into the regulation of the Internet. This is just the first step. Remember what Bammy did with the GM car dealers who supported McCain?? Most of them lost their franchises. Bammy will do the same with the Internet under net-neutrality. Conservative sites like FR will be among the first to be shut down.
There is the keyword: LAWFUL. The Marxists in congress will declare conservative opinion UNLAWFUL. Gotcha!
Much ado about nothing....how much more misleading can that be?
Fiber, DSL, Satellite, wireless, etc... take your pick. There are many alternatives in the broadband space as well as outside of it. So, please.
What?!
Free-market solutions?!
But, but... that’s EVIL CAPITALISM!!!
Are you trying to get steve all wee-wee’d up?
What, there was no government intervention? Those EVIL TELECOM companies are playing with us!
excellent analysis
another way of looking at the issue, is the undermine the property rights of isps.
Undermining property rights is always a terrible idea.
Disappointed in the low number of responses to this topic, which is obviously important enough to start a thread here, but then..sometimes I keep forgetting which site I’m at when tech is discussed. Tragic.
A MUCH more informed discussion here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/the-anti-net-neutrality-movement-is-it-just-about-att-money.ars
There are a LOT of threads on this subject.
And the majority of them are actually relevant, as opposed to the drivel posted here.
As for the article you linked to, I would hardly consider pointing out who is funding the opposing side of the argument as being “informed”, especially when there is no reference to the argument itself.
Obviously you are “forgetting which site you’re at” if you’re surprised that private enterprise would want to keep the federal government out of its business.
It would be comical if it weren’t so “tragic”...
Like I stated previously on another thread, there is a time and place for govt to be beneficial to the votes that put them in place: law enforcement, the military, sewage/water, etc. This is less about getting more, and more about keeping the status quo. Don’t mess with what works. Don’t break it.
i.e. don’t track us, cap our downloads, throttle our websites, choke our connections or send our complaints to Babu in India.
Also, as I pointed out on another thread, there is no win-win for either side here. Once govt steps in, they in most probability will not be satisfied with their hand in the cookie jar. They will want the whole jar. That is the way Democrats want it. And you have Ma Bell to thank for that. They could have just left well enough alone and ceased ripping customers off. Now in all likelihood they will be taken over by a fascist govt, maybe even prosecuted and eventually sent to prison if Obambi has his way. Maybe even executed if we get to a complete meltdown point sometime in the distant future.
Lose-lose on all fronts.
The truly ironic part in all of this, was that customers initially just wanted to be treated like human beings. Now everyone will suffer for the insolence of their providers.
All valid points.
Your reference to the cookie jar is EXACTLY why I don’t like what they’re attempting here.
I see nothing good that can come from this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.