Net Neutrality

A response to Net Neutrality folks, particularly JasonTheNerd. Use your brain and research, while it's still legal :)

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• internet
• free
• net
• neutrality
• politician
• politics

[Gigolo8]

IF I could get you one gift, it'd be a desklamp.

[TheFathead]

If you knew how ugly I was, you'd be praising my decision NOT to use a desk lamp. Unless it was to put in front of my fat head.

[dreamscape86]

So don't use the explanation of "big ISPs versus little websites." It's really not relevant. The content providers want to get the government to pass a law that will grant them a right to be on a network they didn't build, the ISPs don't want to extend that "right" on their private network, and moreover they don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do on their network.

[dreamscape86]

As a related point, people construe this as "the big bad ISPs against the poor little websites." This is not a David and Goliath situation. On one side you have a bunch of (specifically tier 1) ISPs: AT&T, GX, and Qwest. On the other you have a bunch of content providers: Google, Microsoft and Amazon.

[dreamscape86]

Would you appreciate that you're paying for the bandwidth, and yet you are *forced* to allow someone else to use it without paying? Although it's not directly analogous, that is essentially what is going on with Net Neutrality.The government is stepping in and saying "Content providers have an inherent right to be on your network, and you *must* allow them to be here."

[dreamscape86]

The U.S. government has no right to regulate how we access or interact with a private network. How would you like it if someone passed a law that if you had a WiFi connection, you had to leave it open so that other people could access the Internet through it whenever they wanted?

[dreamscape86]

2) The Internet is not something that just exists out there somewhere which your ISP simply provides you access to. Your ISP *is* the Internet. As are you. And I. And YouTube. It is the largest network in the world. But it is still that, a network. It is not a public resource.

[dreamscape86]

That network has a limited amount of bandwidth. Just turning off Quality of Service controls is (big surprise) NOT going to improve your quality of service. Why do websites like YouTube and Amazon have an inherent "right" to exist on the multi-million dollar content distribution network which they did not build?

[dreamscape86]

The problems with the way you articulate Net Neutrality are the ones that I see the most often:

Bandwidth is not free, and the Internet is not a public resource.

1) It has cost ISPs (especially tier 1 ISPs) hundreds of millions of dollars to build the network that you enjoy for $29.99 a month.

[Spoilage]

What it boils down to is double billing. These ISPs want to charge 2x for the same product. They want to charge me for bandwidth. Then they want to charge the websites I visit for the same band width. Sounds crooked to me.

[Gokeytheoriginal]

no offence but i almost fell alseep while u were talking fatheat

[abortedsoul]

You know, I would normally respond to your viewpoint with hostility, but I can thank you for representing yourself well; I appreciate it, and don't need to tell you to fuck off.

I liked the angle you came at this with; it is that sort of thoughtful approach that makes me love being a person.