Net Neutrality -- Electronic Frontier Foundation's explanation on what it is and what it means.

Electronic Frontier Foundation ^ | Unknown -- Posted 11/11/2014 | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[Usagi_yo]

Net Neutrality Net neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally—is a principle that EFF strongly supports.

Unfortunately, the FCC is considering a plan that would allow some Internet providers to provide better access to some websites that pay a fee to reach users faster. This kind of “pay-to-play” Internet stifles innovation. New websites that can’t afford expensive fees for better service will face new barriers to success, leaving users with ever fewer options and a less diverse Internet.

There are many ways ISPs may discriminate against how we access websites, and we stand firm in our opposition to this kind of behavior:

In 2007, Comcast was caught interfering with their customers’ use of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file sharing. We’ve seen discriminatory traffic shaping that prioritizes some protocols over others, like when a Canadian ISP slowed down all encrypted file transfers for five years. The FCC fined Verizon in 2012 for charging consumers for using their phone as a mobile hotspot. Individually and collectively, these practices pose a dire threat to the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today.

The FCC has a poor track record of getting net neutrality right. In January 2014, a federal court rejected the bulk of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet order. The rules that the court threw out, however, were deeply flawed.

Protecting net neutrality is a hard problem, with no easy solutions. It’s going to take a variety of actions and ongoing vigilance.

There is one thing we can all do right now, though: call a halt to the dangerous proposals the FCC has floated to far. That’s why we are asking folks to contact both the FCC and Congress and send a clear message: It’s our internet, we won’t let you damage it, and we won't let you help others damage it.

[setha]

However, your argument is that government should decide, through regulation, what a property owner can do with his property, how the services derived from that property can be packaged and sold...who he can sell it to...AND force him to allow his distribution network to be used by his competitors to deliver THEIR product.

The idea of an Internet service provider is that you're going to be providing connections to other places around the world - which may end up competing against your own. If your service is better than the competitor, people will use it with no need to impair competition.

This is not too different from the concept of international trade, which is decidedly not a Communist idea. In addition, what kinds of innovation would be stopped by not extracting danegeld from someone that became too good of a service versus your own? If anything is out of the Communist playbook, it would be Comcast's strongarming of Netflix until they paid their danegeld.

Finally, if you want to argue about government intervention, consider that Internet service providers already have some degree of government control over them that is already objectionable. If you want to suggest a framework for achieving the same thing without NN (while accounting for the political/industry conditions of today), I'll be happy to hear it.

[Mariner]

"If anything is out of the Communist playbook, it would be Comcast's strongarming of Netflix until they paid their danegeld."

Comcast owns that network, and no matter how despicable they may be, I support their right to determine what traffic they will allow on it and under what terms.

And you do not.

That's the only point of discussion.

If netflix is not happy with that, they can deliver via other means or build their own.

Do you, for some reason, believe that you or some collective does?

If so, what is your reasoning?

[setha]

If netflix is not happy with that, they can deliver via other means or build their own.

Given how it affected Comcast customers, delivering via other means or building their own would not solve the problem. Comcast specifically targeted Netflix traffic to drive customers away from Netflix.

Comcast owns that network, and no matter how despicable they may be, I support their right to determine what traffic they will allow on it and under what terms. ... That's the only point of discussion.

Does that mean you defend their sponsorship of government action that would impede competition in order to achieve that goal? They operate in a highly regulated environment where like-for-like alternatives are not consistently available or can be legislated out of existence - both to Comcast's favor. Without discussing the regulatory actions that can be taken to stifle competition, your argument only seeks to make a blind defense of Comcast.

[Mariner]

"Does that mean you defend their sponsorship of government action that would impede competition in order to achieve that goal? "

You keep dodging the question of your own collectivist goals.

[setha]

You keep dodging the question of your own collectivist goals.

Kind of hard to dodge a question of goals that I do not possess. On the other hand, you presume that the existing environment operates freely enough to support their actions. If not this, then how could you see regulation actively being dropped such that the free market would not allow an ISP like Comcast to be rewarded for punishing Netflix?

At this point, I'd say that it'd be better to agree to disagree if this can't be resolved. You see it as a case of property rights while I see it as a case of increasing competition in a overly-regulated market.