|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by "Network neutrality" is a topic of hot debate among Internet content providers, broadband access providers, web surfers, and lawmakers -- in other words, almost everyone. But what does it all mean? The term itself is shrouded in controversy, and what sounds like a good idea in theory may have unintended consequences in reality. And do both sides have hidden agendas?
Advocates such as the Save The Internet Coalition define Net Neutrality as non-discrimination in terms of quality of service. In simple terms, everyone should have the same opportunity to access the network without the access provider charging a premium for privileged service. For example, Slashdot shouldn't get faster network access or more search engine hits than OmniNerd solely because they can afford premium access to the "fast lane." Or, one shouldn't be forced to use Yahoo instead of Google because the former has ties to Verizon. The network's only job should be to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
But opponents like the Hands Off The Internet Coalition say that regulating Net Neutrality would actually stifle innovation in the realm of broadband network development (laying the "pipes," so to speak), and unfairly favor content providers at the expense of network access providers. They say that Net Neutrality advocates have clouded the debate by "conflating the separate issues of content discrimination [as in the Yahoo vs. Google example above] and traffic-shaping." Allowing access providers to prioritize certain types of traffic would ensure that a break-dancing video on YouTube wouldn't delay a VoIP 911 call.
But who to believe? There are many traditionally trusted people and organizations that support Net Neutrality, such as Craig Newmark (the recently interviewed founder of craigslist.org), the Consumers Union, and Google ... but could they be in it to protect their own business models? Congress, at least up to this point, seems to agree, as they have rejected Net Neutrality provisions in telecommunications legislation.
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (12)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
Thoughts. Opinions.
The statement : “On a tiered Internet controlled by the phone and cable companies, only their own content and services -- or those offered by corporate partners who pony up enough "protection money" -- will enjoy life in the fast lane.”
Sounds just like how the organized crime bosses got their start in the 1920’ and 30’s.
Using the term “the net” implies a fishnet type structure where if you need to go from one part to the next you follow the strings from node to node until you get there; hopefully, but not necessarily by the shortest route. By charging higher prices for prioritized access, the shape of the net will gradually change from a ‘net shaped’ structure to a vascular or treelike structure where you can only get from place to place by following main highways that charge tolls collected by corporate trolls hiding under hidden bridges. This won’t happen immediately, but gradually if net neutrality is allowed to diminish.
When I use the net to do a search for something, I am assuming that my results are based on an aggregate collection of data determined by my search keywords and how attractive each web location has made itself towards showing up in my search. If instead, my results were simply based on how many tollbooths had been appeased between me and them, it seems like the collected results would be suspect in nature. In other words I would rather do the choosing myself between what is data and what is actual information, and not have to rely on the pocketbooks of my potential targets to determine whether they are a viable source or not.
This comment has 7 replies.
0 Nerd-Its
still waffling
I did a couple hours worth of reading on the subject while writing up this topic, and I still don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. I may be more confused than I was before.
I'm against "content discrimination", but "traffic shaping" sounds like a sensible idea. The Hands Off The Internet folks say that access providers aren't interested in the former, but I can't see how they wouldn't be -- it makes too much business sense to discriminate in favor of one's own affiliates to NOT do it. That might aggravate consumers somewhat, but since most access providers are near-monopolies anyway, would it matter? I've got two choices for broadband access in my area: Quest DSL or Comcast Cable. If they both gave preferential access to their buddies and/or blocked certain competitors, what choice would I have?
I understand that building broadband network infrastructure (e.g., fiber optic lines) is expensive, and the telecom companies have to recoup their investment somehow, but I don't like the idea of "double dipping" -- that is, charging me for access and then turning around and charging content providers again (who, presumably, would then pass those costs on to me).
Bottom line, it's a complicated issue and I'm flippin' confused.
0 Nerd-Its
International Impact
I don't think the tiered network will ever fly. Say the United States deems this a "good idea" and actually implements it. The rest of the world will simply look at us quizically, and maintain their status quo. Those seeking free access and whatnot, will simply move their operations overseas.
Still, Joe America gets screwed, but likely will not notice the difference. Most people just think of their connections in terms of "fast" and "slow" anyway. They don't really care what's behind the wall socket as long as the e-mail arrives. Increased cost? It'll still boil down to who provides Joe America the cheapest connection. Only the minority diehards will notice the difference and feel sleighted that they have to pay more for what they used to have normally.
I think grassroots movements would push ad hoc wireless meshes into a greater mainstream. The US Internet would then become more of a true, dynamic network with rapidly changing routes and nodes as "FreeNet" emerges. Then, overtime, the industry will revert and have to play catch-up to the rest of the world.
RSS
Its not up to us! by smcbride :: NR6 :: Show
This is a question for Al Gore. Creator of the information highway. Or maybe Hal 9000 the A.I. who is truly in command of the net. We must wait for the symbol of Zoroastrianism to reappear, to gain access to information form internet Gods who will release more data. For now I remain neutral.