Net-Neutrality: wtf is it?

[zeroth404]

I'm so confused with this whole mess...

I understand basically what net-neutrality is: "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet." as quoted by Google ...

but I fail to see how netowrk-non-neutrality could be regulated. by what ... blocking a few ports? thats not going to do much.

all these people, like Google, are trying to convince congress to pass net-neutrality laws and stuff, but then I see sites like handsoff.org which is against government regulation at all ...

...not to mention that no person, no government, no country owns the internet...

so why the hell is this even an issue? if nobody can regulate the internet, and even if they tried it would utterly fail....

any ISP that tries to limit the internet is signing it's own death warrant.

[techieMoe]

The way I understand it, network neutrality means that even though AT&T or Time Warner owns the fiber optic backbone that pipes you your internet, they cannot control what content makes it to you. They can't, for instance, keep you from going to Google and make only MSN show up for your browser.

Companies like Time Warner and AT&T want to end that. They essentially want to say, "It's our sandbox, and either you play with the toys we let you play with or we're taking all the toys and going home." They want to be able to only allow certain content to certain people and limit what pages load for whom depending on a "tiered" pay-for-privileges scale. It's kind of like the idea of cable television: you have Basic, which is cheapest but only allows you certain channels, and for a premium price you get the nudie....er..."premium" channels.

The problem with this (in my opinion) is that the Internet is not cable TV. Business models that work in one part of consumers' lives won't necessarily translate well to another, and I think this is definitely the case here. I don't like the idea of having to pay extra just to get unrestricted internet access, and I think the majority of the USA will agree; we're just too used to the internet being "free".

[carlosponti]

there is another issue in this. ISP's can essentually block sites that dont meet with thier ideals either. the example i saw of this was a canadian ISP blocking access to news sites talking about a strike that its union workers were holding. I could easily see some Big ISP's not only wanting compensation but its own form of censorship based on company policies.

[fingal]

This isn't the most focused thing I've ever said, but the idea of a tiered internet gives me the galloping heebie jeebies. There are several reasons for this type of angst:

* I use the internet every day professionally (I trained as a librarian) and therefore free un-tiered access is essential for my ability to make a living.

Start charging different tariffs and very soon people will pay for access and start cutting jobs ... mine probably; well ... people like me. I (and many others just like me) value freedom of access to information. This is one of the central pillars of a civilisation. No library/net access=no education=ignorance in my world ...

* as a paid-up member of the awkward squad I value freedom and will try to defend it. As long as no-one is getting hurt and it's free and of benefit I want it to stay that way; this makes me a liberal with a small 'l'. It also makes me unfashionable.

* Tim Berners-Lee and other highly respected commentators disagree with it: I defer to one of the father's of the net ...

* it's wrong and we know it is because we're sensible. Let corporations do what they're good at and let's stop them trying to 'own' the net for financial gain. The average life-span of an average company is about 50 years. Why put the net into the hands of something so ephemeral? We need to make sure that our kids can enjoy the same access and privileges as we enjoy today (though I'm rather short of kids myself).

Btw ... being a librarian enhances your coolness and makes you very popular with women. Oh yeah! If you like ancient history read this.

[cousinlucky]

It does not matter what type of spin or story is associated with this topic it is All about money, greed, and power. The government wants to be able to contol the content of web sites so they say ;they claim that they are only going after porno sites and child molesters.

The ISP's want to set a rate tier; this includes Emails per day per client; file and software downloading, etc.

Now that the world is hooked on the Internet it is time to " pimp the pockets " of as many of its " users " as possible.

If they go too far; an illegal Internet will emerge following the same trend as the narcotics industry.

It is just the back side of our human nature showing its foul self again!!

[Vergil83]

I think everyone has it slightly wrong. It isn't that certain sites won't be viewable necessarily, although that is a long range possibilty.

Currently all packets are treated the same by your ISP. It doesn't matter if that packet is for google.com, a torrent, or voip. No packets gets special privilege. The ISPs want to give special treatment. Since voip can't stand delay, it would get the smallest wait time. The ISP would get to deciede who gets the best service (as in sites). So google may take longer to load, unless google pays money to the ISP for the best service. Google, yahoo, msn have money to pay for the best service. my lonely litle website, or the next big thing on the internet won't, therefore, people will stop going to "independent sites" and go to big, better financed sites because of faster speed.

[techieMoe]

I think everyone has it slightly wrong. It isn't that certain sites won't be viewable necessarily, although that is a long range possibilty.

Currently all packets are treated the same by your ISP. It doesn't matter if that packet is for google.com, a torrent, or voip. No packets gets special privilege. The ISPs want to give special treatment. Since voip can't stand delay, it would get the smallest wait time. The ISP would get to deciede who gets the best service (as in sites). So google may take longer to load, unless google pays money to the ISP for the best service. Google, yahoo, msn have money to pay for the best service. my lonely litle website, or the next big thing on the internet won't, therefore, people will stop going to "independent sites" and go to big, better financed sites because of faster speed.

Well, it's not that we've got it wrong. We're only addressing one aspect of the issue, and you've just illuminated yet another.

[apoorv_khurasia]

This is what I know about China. That is one nation in which all sites are regulated by the govt. So you cannot type/view the words like Democracy (De**cr**y works though!!!) etc. Even images that say Democracy in graffiti will disappear after sometime. Companies like Google and Yahoo have to make special promises that they will not host any such content.

[Vergil83]

This is what I know about China. That is one nation in which all sites are regulated by the govt. So you cannot type/view the words like Democracy (De**cr**y works though!!!) etc. Even images that say Democracy in graffiti will disappear after sometime. Companies like Google and Yahoo have to make special promises that they will not host any such content.

I do love the hypocrisy of the likes of Google, Yahoo, MSN talking about "freedom" of the Internet here, while censoring in China.

[techieMoe]

I do love the hypocrisy of the likes of Google, Yahoo, MSN talking about "freedom" of the Internet here, while censoring in China.

Hypocrisy? I don't see that. Google, Yahoo, and MSN aren't the ones keeping the people of China from seeing the whole truth, the government of China is. This is no different from game publishers having to retool their games to sell in Australia or Germany: they want to offer a product or service (in this case: an internet search engine) to a very large number of people, and in order to do so they must comply with that country's government regulations.

If you have issues with free speech in China, get mad at the Chinese government, not Google. You might as well boycott Acclaim for censoring Turok or Activision for censoring Wolfenstein 3D when they were released in Australia and Germany, respectively. Put the blame where blame is due.