Net Neutrality?

[mattp]

It seems to me that I’d like cc.com or even smaller sites to have the same access and same service speed and same search engine presence and everything else as some large business enterprise like MSNBC or whatever, and those arguing for Net Neutrality say that without some regulation, we will lose this as the business interests take over "our" Internet for commercial puroposes. I think it is likely that Internet business will almost certainly warp even more than it already has so as to favor big players over the small guy without some kind of government or regulatory intervention, but what do you folks make of the argument that the currently proposed regulation or other efforts to protect “equal access” on the Internet will “stifle innovation?”

 

Do we care if Google or Microsoft don’t make quite as much extra profit by developing or marketing new services? Just what kind of "innovation" might we stand to lose?

 

What are the real issues here?

[Cobra_Commander]

Traffic shaping for commercial purposes should be completely illegal.

[fenderfour]

The biggest issue I've heard involves the service providers handicapping requests for data/services from online companies in direct competition with them. i.e. Comcast could slow down the connection to e-bay while promoting their own auction service (or whatever).

[G-spotter]

Nut Neutrality.

 

Gotta eat em all.

[foraker]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/06/19/telco-argument-implodes-during-dc-debate/

[archenemy]

I have a hard time believing that our government would do anything that really, truly favors the little guy over big business.

 

Geez I am getting to be a cynical old bag.

[Mr_Phil]

I agree.

 

George W. Bush should be in charge of the internet. He did beat Al Gore for it in 2000.

 

Look what he's done for Iraq.

[Crux]

It seems to me that I’d like cc.com or even smaller sites to have the same access and same service speed and same search engine presence and everything else as some large business enterprise like MSNBC or whatever, and those arguing for Net Neutrality say that without some regulation, we will lose this as the business interests take over "our" Internet for commercial puroposes. I think it is likely that Internet business will almost certainly warp even more than it already has so as to favor big players over the small guy without some kind of government or regulatory intervention, but what do you folks make of the argument that the currently proposed regulation or other efforts to protect “equal access” on the Internet will “stifle innovation?”

 

Do we care if Google or Microsoft don’t make quite as much extra profit by developing or marketing new services? Just what kind of "innovation" might we stand to lose?

 

What are the real issues here?

 

Let's see... the Internet was designed and initially built by government-funded researchers, correct? And then the hyperlink technology of the World Wide Web was invented by an individual, developed in concert with his peers, and essentially donated to the world community, correct?

 

I think its clear that small-time innovators made things happen, things like this website, for example, and this is the type of innovation we stand to lose. Imagine, if you can, this site ever being the product of the “innovation” of an AT&T or Verizon or Microsoft or AOL or whatever power player has come along to leverage freely available technology into the stifling confines of its own brand name.

 

For the kind of innovation that gave us what we have now, look to the likes of the company that hosts this site, or the guys who started this site, or the gang of geeks who wrote the software it runs on. For the kind of innovation that stifles, censors, and rules with a fascist hand, look to the gorillas – and today, unfortunately, that includes our government.

[Stefan]

I am one of those ignorant Americans. I do not understand Net Neutrality.

 

Whatever it means, I just hope the governments stay out of it. Let the market decide this one.

[foraker]

 

Stefan, the problem is that you have mentally extricated yourself from 'the market'. As a consumer, you've said 'I want bandwidth and I choose which information I want to access.' Read the link I posted and maybe you'll understand better why we shouldn't let the telco's decide this issue.

[cj001f]

Whatever it means, I just hope the governments stay out of it. Let the market decide this one.

Stefan said :

I want to be charged twice!

[mattp]

I don't agree with any simple "let the market decide" argument. Consider the telephone: without regulation along the lines of what I understand "net neurtrality" to be, you'd have no telephone service in rural areas or at least no affordable service because it is so much more expensive to install phone lines that run long distances with comparitively little traffic.

 

I DO think the Net is a public utility, and it should have some degree of regulation, but the question remains to what extent and how it should be regulated.

[olyclimber]

In the future it will cost you 10 cents a post to post in Spray. But posting a TR will only cost you 5 cents.

[cj001f]

In the future it will cost you 10 cents a post to post in Spray. But posting a TR will only cost you 5 cents.

If I understand the telcos plan, it would cost you, I, and dru $.10, some <1000 post sprayer, $.05 and some n00b $.00 to post in spray.

[G-spotter]

I don't own that many dimes and the coin slot on my computer doesn't take quarters.

[cj001f]

I don't own that many dimes and the coin slot on my computer doesn't take quarters.

We only accept American Money

[Stefan]

Stefan, the problem is that you have mentally extricated yourself from 'the market'. As a consumer, you've said 'I want bandwidth and I choose which information I want to access.' Read the link I posted and maybe you'll understand better why we shouldn't let the telco's decide this issue.

 

So this "net neutrality" thing is that the telcos are deciding which sources of information are faster than others by charging a tiered pricing to the sources of information?

[Stefan]

I don't agree with any simple "let the market decide" argument. Consider the telephone: without regulation along the lines of what I understand "net neurtrality" to be, you'd have no telephone service in rural areas or at least no affordable service because it is so much more expensive to install phone lines that run long distances with comparitively little traffic.

 

I DO think the Net is a public utility, and it should have some degree of regulation, but the question remains to what extent and how it should be regulated.

 

I have never thought that we should have ever paid for a rural charge--there was some tax on your bills for that.

 

I have thought that if you wanted to live in a rural area, then you gotta pay for those services. Such as buying more gas to go back and forth. Your choice.

 

If you want to live away from the areas that don't have natural gas--so be it. Same with bandwith...

 

Remember, I am still unsure of what Net Neutrality means.

[cj001f]

I have never thought that we should have ever paid for a rural charge--there was some tax on your bills for that.

 

I have thought that if you wanted to live in a rural area, then you gotta pay for those services. Such as buying more gas to go back and forth. Your choice.

 

If you want to live away from the areas that don't have natural gas--so be it. Same with bandwith...

 

Remember, I am still unsure of what Net Neutrality means.

 

Another Ayn Rand in the bedside table'r. Maybe the next edition will come with a black leatherette cover and gold embossing

[Stefan]

I DO think the Net is a public utility.

 

I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

[cj001f]

I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

Would you disagree that universal telephone service has been a substantial net economic benefit as well as saved the lives of thousands (one need only look to 911). If electricity's necessary (sorry dude, you don't 'need' heat ) so is net access.

[G-spotter]

You don't need sewage either. You can shit in a bucket.

[Stefan]

I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

Would you disagree that universal telephone service has been a substantial net economic benefit as well as saved the lives of thousands (one need only look to 911)

 

Universal telephone service has benefited many people. I don't know about the economics of it of though if it really was beneficial. Humans have a way of being flexible.

 

I look at third world countries now where the technology of cell phones has helped these people in definite rural areas--but they are paying for it themselves without other people subsidizing it through government intervention.

[Crux]

True that, about electricity. Aristotle, I am sure, philosophically agreed. And speaking of philosphers, did not Socrates say, to have lived the un-electrified life is to not have lived at all? To be sure, dear Plato, what is real if not for the electrons heating our spheres? It is all about spherical neutrality, metaphysically speaking.

[G-spotter]

True that, about electricity. Aristotle, I am sure, philosophically agreed. And speaking of philosphers, did not Socrates say, to have lived the un-electrified life is to not have lived at all? To be sure, dear Plato, what is real if not for the electrons heating our spheres? It is all about spherical neutrality, metaphysically speaking.

 

The Greeks distrusted electricity because it was a Persian trick