Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
It is very simple. The "original intention" of net neutrality was to disallow ISPs from blocking traffic to certain sites. It arose when the former AT&T chief suggested that Google pay AT&T for the privilege of AT&T's customers browsing Google's website and it was rightfully compared to the "common carrier" status enjoyed by phone companies.

However, like all good intentions, net neutrality morphed into disallowing ISPs from giving priority (and of course deprioritizing) certain types of traffic. With this rule in place, ISPs had no choice but to cap all traffic at a certain level, because the cap impacts all traffic equally. Unfortunately, this opened the door for ISPs to impose ridiculously low caps and insane overages for crossing said caps. This is definitely not the way we want to go in terms of a "broadband policy."

6 posted on 10/11/2009 5:48:40 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: pnh102

“It is very simple. The “original intention” of net neutrality was to disallow ISPs from blocking traffic to certain sites. It arose when the former AT&T chief suggested that Google pay AT&T for the privilege of AT&T’s customers browsing Google’s website and it was rightfully compared to the “common carrier” status enjoyed by phone companies.
However, like all good intentions, net neutrality morphed into disallowing ISPs from giving priority (and of course deprioritizing) certain types of traffic. With this rule in place, ISPs had no choice but to cap all traffic at a certain level, because the cap impacts all traffic equally. Unfortunately, this opened the door for ISPs to impose ridiculously low caps and insane overages for crossing said caps. This is definitely not the way we want to go in terms of a “broadband policy.” “

I really have to disagree with this assessment a bit. Net neutrality is a very libertarian concept and from a libertarian standpoint, the right thing to do. Yes, it will lead to congestion of certain types of traffic and yes some ISPs will impose caps. But that’s when capitalism will kick in and customers will vote with their monthly bills and change ISPs that have invested in bigger pipes and routing equipment...this includes national and international fiber infrastructure as was done in the mid-late nineties. We still have lots of dark fiber with which to expand and once net neutrality kicks in, investors will turn to laying more.

The answer to congestion that results from net neutrality is the same as it is for congestion on highways and roads, i.e., build more and bigger highways and roads. The cities that have done this have won huge gains in capital from outfits like logistics and shipping companies when they have done this. I believe the same will happen with net neutrality.

Keep the net open and free and let capitalism work. Freedom first, capitalism to organize it. Those two ideals have served us well in the past.


7 posted on 10/19/2009 5:21:54 AM PDT by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson