Any thoughts on Net Neutrality?

[sjflynn 14]

Recently, the House rejected an amendment to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that would have allowed the FCC to regulate the internet. The destructive concept that the government should regulate the internet in order to force ISPs to provide everyone with equal access to data services is known as "network neutrality." If ISPs and other data providers are forced to provide everyone with the same internet service, there is no incentive to invest in new internet infrastructure.

 

However, if the internet is kept free from regulation, internet providers will be free to charge some people more for internet than others, and will be able to selectively limit access to the internet based on consumers' willingness to pay for the service. This is an inherently good concept. The internet is a public resource and as such, ISPs must be given the ability to make profit off its use, or there is no incentive for them to build new infrastructure.

 

Some great info on this can be found here

Also, there are blog postings on net neutrality here and on my MySpace account

 

Thoughts?

[JustinP 117]

 

The internet is a public resource and as such, ISPs must be given the ability to make profit off its use, or there is no incentive for them to build new infrastructure.

 

 

I smell fallacy...

[Zombie Abraham Lincoln 2770]

Screw that. I don't want my ISP to control what I do on the internet.

[dyslexicdog 30]

i like how the poster asks for thoughts after telling us that one side is inherently good.

 

also, i think your understanding of it is wrong, it has less to do with consumers paying an additional price to get better access (which is currently the case as you can pay more for a cable or DSL connection) as with ISPs requiring websites to pay the ISP in order for that ISP's customers to be able to access that website. in theory, customers would either be given very slow access or no access whatsoever to websites that refused to pay these fees.

[nvalley 121]

Recently, the House rejected an amendment to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that would have allowed the FCC to regulate the internet. The destructive concept that the government should regulate the internet in order to force ISPs to provide everyone with equal access to data services is known as "network neutrality." If ISPs and other data providers are forced to provide everyone with the same internet service, there is no incentive to invest in new internet infrastructure.

 

However, if the internet is kept free from regulation, internet providers will be free to charge some people more for internet than others, and will be able to selectively limit access to the internet based on consumers' willingness to pay for the service. This is an inherently good concept. The internet is a public resource and as such, ISPs must be given the ability to make profit off its use, or there is no incentive for them to build new infrastructure.

 

Some great info on this can be found here

Also, there are blog postings on net neutrality here and on my MySpace account

 

Thoughts?

 

the only person who will agree with you is Phil Kerpen.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

If ISPs and other data providers are forced to provide everyone with the same internet service, there is no incentive to invest in new internet infrastructure.

...which is why everyone still dials in to the web at 14.4 kbps.

 

Yet, somehow, many other industrialized countries have higher broadband penetration than the U.S. and still maintain neutrality...

[Lockesdonkey 421]

Let's get one thing clear, net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs do not descriminate between two different sites, i.e. that a bit sent over the Internet is just another bit sent over the Internet; it doesn't matter whether it came from some ordinary guy's blog or the President of the United States, the bit of information is treated equally. A non-neutral network would allow ISPs to say, "well, those guys can pay me more for allowing them to put information on the net, so I will give them priority."

 

As a result:

 

the only person who will agree with you is Phil Kerpen.

 

No, Kerpen runs this site. In a non-neutral network he'd have to pay more to keep his current bandwidth.

 

At least, that's what I get from what little I've heard. I could be totally wrong.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

If you believe everything the ISP's have been saying, non-preferred data will not move slower than the status quo, it simply won't travel as fast as preferred data which will move along the new/improved transmission channels. Of course (to borrow an econ term) the non-preferred data will move slower in real terms.

 

That's if you trust the ISP's to keep their word...

 

The best-case scenario will be that no major company pays for preferred access. The ISP's would love an "arms race" between companies (like Google, Yahoo!, and MSN) and I'm sure they'll be happy to play them against each other, charging increasing amounts for marginal increases in transmission speed. But if none of the big companies participate, then there will be public clamor for higher speeds but minimal damage to neutrality.

[nvalley 121]

Let's get one thing clear, net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs do not descriminate between two different sites, i.e. that a bit sent over the Internet is just another bit sent over the Internet; it doesn't matter whether it came from some ordinary guy's blog or the President of the United States, the bit of information is treated equally. A non-neutral network would allow ISPs to say, "well, those guys can pay me more for allowing them to put information on the net, so I will give them priority."

 

As a result:

 

 

 

No, Kerpen runs this site. In a non-neutral network he'd have to pay more to keep his current bandwidth.

 

At least, that's what I get from what little I've heard. I could be totally wrong.

 

 

I was making a joke, but here are Phil's writings I have seen on the issue.

 

http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200604/0558.html

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kerpen200604190818.asp

 

"Net neutrality, which could undermine the promise of convergence by preventing a carrier from having any meaningful control over what comes through its pipes, would also undercut infrastructure investment. Advanced networks cost billions of dollars to deploy and need to generate predictable revenue to make business sense. The infrastructure companies are unanimous in their belief that offering premium services with guaranteed bandwidth will be necessary. Quality-of-service issues alone are likely to require tiering, because in a world of finite bandwidth, people won’t want high-value services like video and voice if they can be degraded by the peer-to-peer applications of teenage neighbors."

 

and

 

"Believers in net neutrality are using apocalyptic rhetoric, talking about the end of the Internet and suggesting a future in which carriers strictly limit what content is available to their customers. Such a scenario is highly implausible in a competitive marketplace, where customers would cancel Internet service if they could no longer access some websites."

 

 

Although the article in question is about video convergence, not strictly net neutrality, much of Kerpen's writings can be seen as "anti-net neutrality" in that he uses the same infrastructure justifications as others and negative rhetoric about neutrality. Also, see the April 2006 "Save theinternet!!" posts on edebate for further proof. Although maybe Phil could shed some light on this for us.

[kerpen 533]

I am opposed to net neutrality legislation. I think my reasons are clear enough in the links provided.

[kanmalachoa 14]

wow. phil responded.