Posted on 06/05/2006 3:51:43 PM PDT by yoe
BTTT
Here is what Tim Berners-Lee says about it --
Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web, has called for clear separation between Internet access and Internet content.
Speaking at the World Wide Web conference in Edinburgh on Tuesday morning, Berners-Lee gave his views on the growing battle over Net neutrality.
"It's better and more efficient for us all if we have a separate market where we get our connectivity, and a separate market where we get our content. Information is what I use to make all my decisions. Not just what to buy, but how to vote," Berners-Lee told journalists.
"There is an effort by some companies in the U.S. to change this. There's an attempt to get to a situation where if I want to watch a TV station across the Internet, that TV station must have paid to transmit to me."
Net neutrality is the concept that all Internet content should be treated equally by broadband providers without any kind of discrimination. It has become a hot political topic this year, especially in the U.S., amid fears that telephone companies may start blocking some Web sites or charge users extra to access them.
Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have been lobbying U.S. politicians to introduce laws that would make Net neutrality mandatory. These moves have been opposed by broadband providers and some hardware manufacturers.
[This was from a 5/23/2006 article ...]
My fear is government involvement period.
Without net neutrality, the internet turns into corporate radio and cable tv, with good service for CNN and lousy web hosting for the rest of us. And FR ponies up a ton of money or drops off of the map and gets really, really slow.
I suppose you're saying that you do want to pay for extra services and have the Internet segmented?You know that the one does not follow from the other. And I want you also to understand that no one here thinks that you are a complete moron. Not in the least. We just want you to understand that net neutrality is the worst idea ever, and that people that favour it are deeply misguided at best, and slobbering, gibbering, knuckle-dragging idiots at worst.
This "no government regulation" is hooey. What the telcos want is to be avble to double charge-- you for your connection and the person providing the web page for providing it to you. How long before we have exclusive deals--"We have signed an exclusive arrangement with the New York Times as a news provider so you will get only the best news on the internet..."
"We have signed an exclusive arrangement with the New York Times as a news provider so you will get only the best news on the internet..."Dude. That's when you find another provider. That's how the system works. It's called a free market. Look into it. You may discover that you like it.
Without net neutrality, the internet turns into corporate radio and cable tv, with good service for CNN and lousy web hosting for the rest of us. And FR ponies up a ton of money or drops off of the map and gets really, really slow.What a rich fantasy life you enjoy. Too paranoid for my tastes, but whatever.
Net neutrality is essential for the right, which has been able to use the Internet on an even field with big media.Precisely the opposite is the case. Net neutrality is the internet version of the so-called fairness doctrine used for many years to silence the right. The principle of "neutrality" can be used as prior restraint to free speech. Read the argument and weep bitter tears: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008391
And that's when you discover that it doesn't help. This has more to do with the content provider than your provider. If they're effectively speed-limited in what they can give you compared to some big company that can afford to spend whatever is necessary, who do you think will dominate the Internet?Who does the speed limiting if not the providers?--so you find another provider. And who dominates the internet now?--a very few players (google etc.), as the web specifies as a so-called scale-free network. But whether providers of richer content or more bandwidth hungry sites should pay more is not the point: the point is that government regulation is not the answer. The market place will sort this out.
For those of you who say "get another provider," I'd say that would be great except there are none in some areas. The government has seen fit to give one cable company a monopoly in my area, and therefore there are no other providers. Profoundly stupid, but reality.
However, having done that, the least the government can now do is prevent that monopoly from screwing me over.
The internet has been profoundly useful in expanding freedom and exposing statist bull---t for what it is. Don't mess with that by letting monopolists determine what sites they'll let load and which sites they won't.
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.