[billakay]

Net neutrality is a pretty sticky subject. On the one hand, it sounds like (Un)fairness Doctrine. On the other hand does it sounds like a good idea to allow companies to give preference some peoples packets over others? Net neutrality, in the form it should be, is what has existed since the Internet came online. All packets are treated exactly the same by all routers. What companies want to do now is give preference to traffic that accesses their services, or the services of their partners, at the expense of any other traffic. This is not a good idea, and could serve to snuff out the “little guys” who use the Internet for their purposes. Do we want an ISP with the wrong poltical stance deciding that Free Republic is not important enough, and to drastically slow down their packets? Net neutrality deserves a closer look than this article gives it.

-Bill

[babble-on]

Billakay, I agree with you on this. I think that Net Neutrality prevents the web access providers from using the net to control content and to send adverstisers down our gullet. Net Neutrality prevents the web from becoming an online version of home telemarketers.

[Delacon]

bump

[pappyone]

Yes, that is the way I understand it also. Fer instance, an ISP could charge CNN a hefty fee for “fast” delivery of their content. No problem for them, CNN generates much ad revenue. Whereas a site like FR with a relatively small click base could be charged less, and get “slow” delivery. I would foresee a long load time for FR sans net neutrality. What would happen if FR could not afford even the “slow” delivery rate? Don't want to contemplate that.

[Delacon]

A good analogy would be the legal ruling on whether bars and nightclubs could allow women in for free and yet still charge men at the door. The idea was that while women are good for business and a bar “rich in female content” will attract the paying men to come in while keeping out enough guys(who couldn’t afford to pay) to keep the content at a proper “male/female” ratio. The courts ruled that “ladies night” was discriminatory. We all deserve equal access to their business. ISPs want to charge more for you and I to access the internet(the guys) than they would for the big internet draws like the major media outlets(the girls) knowing that we will pay up. They reduce some of the traffic which is expensive(too crowded bar) but make up for it with the higher rates(the cover charge).

[pleikumud]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-507es.html

Cato has a good recap, see above.

[Red Steel]

It’s tantamount to a service denial attack.

[paulycy]

What companies want to do now is give preference to traffic that accesses their services, or the services of their partners, at the expense of any other traffic. This is not a good idea, and could serve to snuff out the “little guys” who use the Internet for their purposes.

I echo this point. The definition of net neutrality is very, very far from clear. It seems to mean something different to everyone who uses it.

I want the packets to be treated equally. I don't want a "fast lane" installed that only the big players can afford. That would take the small d democratic benefits out of it.

But I also want no content manipulation by the government or some ridiculous law passed that throttles sites like FR either technically or content-wise.

Is there a definition of this mess yet?

[plain talk]

I’d prefer taking my chances with the ISPs and private sector than these fascists anyday.

[MeanGreen2008]

I agree. Imagine if phone carriers could charge you for receiving calls for another carrier? Or give tower sigal preference to their own customers and giving users of other carriers a busy signal?

I’m a supporter of Net Neutrality.