#1 2009-10-22 14:57:45
Oddly, things seem to be advancing toward making Net Neutrality a reality. They're asking for public comments. If you've got time, drop them a line.
Offline
#2 2009-10-22 17:36:57
There is another side to the debate. I don't claim to know enough about either side to a passionate supporter. However, I do know that allowing government into the game, even to ostensibly keep the playing field level, could become something we will regret.
Offline
#3 2009-10-22 19:03:54
phreddy wrote:
There is another side to the debate. I don't claim to know enough about either side to a passionate supporter. However, I do know that allowing government into the game, even to ostensibly keep the playing field level, could become something we will regret.
Your example actually supports the case that the public cannot depend on telecommunications companies to keep the Net neutral.
Offline
#4 2009-10-22 19:18:20
fnord wrote:
phreddy wrote:
There is another side to the debate. I don't claim to know enough about either side to a passionate supporter. However, I do know that allowing government into the game, even to ostensibly keep the playing field level, could become something we will regret.
Your example actually supports the case that the public cannot depend on telecommunications companies to keep the Net neutral.
You could be right because, as I said, I don't know that much about it. But what if a fundie gets elected president and wedges one of his hell fire and brimstone buddies into the FCC? Just speculating here.
Offline
#5 2009-10-22 19:24:47
phreddy wrote:
You could be right because, as I said, I don't know that much about it. But what if a fundie gets elected president and wedges one of his hell fire and brimstone buddies into the FCC? Just speculating here.
Well, we've survived it before.
Net neutrality can't really bite you on the ass, unless you're a shareholder in a telecom, in which case you'll notice an extremely small drop in your dividend (maybe). Basically net neutrality means that your ISP can't restrict your internet access by, for example, restricting ports, traffic shaping, or imposing bandwidth caps during peak hours. The wikipedia article isn't bad.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-10-22 19:25:13)
Offline
#6 2009-10-23 07:15:03
I see NN as one of those things that looks good on the surface, but can become a huge weapon in the hands of the regulators. Phred is right on this one. Fundies or anyone with a political axe to grind can use it as a way to artificially limit access to content whenever they feel like it.
Right now you have the telecoms whining about how they have to carry all of the traffic without being able to limit it. But they don't seem to be going broke any more and we still have nearly as much fiber dark in this country as lit, so they are really just making noise to be heard. There is no shortage of BW and once there is, more companies will step up to provide it. BW isn't like coal, there is an infinite supply, cheaply provided and taking very little physical space.
What the ISPs want is an excuse to be able to upcharge you for "premium" content delivery. Want your email to go out immediately instead of being buffered? That will be $0.10. Want that video in HD instead of 320x240? That will be $0.10 a minute. With NN, which, like all laws means the exact opposite of it's name, the net will be anything but Neutral. The folks with money will get speed and everyone else will have to get by on crumbs. The ISPs are looking at declining revenues due to intense price pressure / MB and looking for ways to enhance their revenue streams. Nothing more.
Offline
