Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Net Neutrality

0 helpful
4 replies

by yobtaf

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I generally don't like to get involved with things like this but the
other day I became aware that I was getting bombarded with a
series of very well produced TV commercials calling for people
to support something called "THE FUTURE FASTER". The basic
message was to support legislation that would allow faster
development of the internet, give us more choices and generally
make our lives better. If you go to their website
www.thefuturefaster.com you will find that it is run by the
United States Telecom Association. Basically this group is trying
to pass laws that will allow them to control who gets priority on
their bandwidth, which means they can make more profits but
also hamper companies who offer competing services. I'm not
against companies making profits but I view the infrastructure of
the net is now as important as our high ways or bridges. If we
were told that we had to pay to use the fast lane or that we were
not allowed to use the fast lane because we didn't own the
highway, we would be very upset.

Maybe this is not a great analogy but the fact is that if the cable
owners get their way it will cost us in money and choices. The
choices part is what disturbs me the most.

The opposition is "It's Our Net" www.itsournet.org which also
has corporate backers like Amazon.com, Adobe, Microsoft and
Google. So, both sides are not without sin, but I definitely feel
more in line with this group.

Congress is hashing out a bill that will either make Net
Neutrality law or allow the cable owners free rein. If you feel the
way I do you better act now.

I welcome all discussion and opposing opinions.

4 replies

by faradhi

Right now there is nothing being done to control the Internet. There is no government intervention or control at all. And as a result the Internet has exploded. It has changed the way we obtain information.

Given that all Internet providers are against "Net Neutrality" leads me to believe that all of them will want to charge for "toll roads"(to use your analogy). However, My concern is not that Internet Providers will block competitor's traffic. The fact is that Internet Providers have little competition. Usually only three providers in any given area for individuals. The concern is that Google may pay Bellsouth to make Yahoo mail slower than Google mail. Thus creating the perception that Google is the better service. (I am not saying Google would actually do this. It is just an analogy")

Now this fear should be enough right? Wrong. What about anti-Trust laws? Would this type of practice would be covered by them? I don't know. And unless your a lawyer that works in that type of law, you don't know either. I have not read anything that discusses this issue from that point of view.

So, while my initial reaction is to say Yes, vote for net neutrality. I would rather be sure a law does something. And making a new law for an already illegal practice does not do anything but give people warm fuzzies.

by tig2

I don't know that the current language will accomplish the desired result. I also would like to see a technical analysis of the actual need undertaken before language to accomplish the solution is crafted. I am strongly against passing any law that will not deliver an actual solution.

I think that this legislation is premature at this time.

by yobtaf

You both bring up important points.

My feeling is that the corporations who own the cables (and
there aren't many of them) are making the huge investments in
their networks because the profit potential are incredible. That is
fine with me, I own stock and benefit when corporations make
money. But keep in mind that this is not "your father's" internet.
All the major development started when we (the general public)
were using dial-up service, only large companies had full time
high speed connections. But the ball game is different now.

The cable owners should be free to do a lot of what they want to
do and make as much profit as possible. But keep in mind that
we put restrictions on our government, our children and even
ourselves. To give them complete freedom with "our" internet is
dangerous.

The issues involved are technical, economical as well
philosophical. I don't know whether our representatives are up
to the task, especially since some of them may be getting money
from lobbying groups on one side or the other. I do however
think that we have to deal with this issue and they are the ones
we elected to do represent us.

Unfortunately the mainstream news has pretty much ignored
this story and I must say that I don't know as much about the
details of the bill before Congress as I would like. All I know is
that when I get bombarded by misleading TV commercials from
a special interest group, my reaction is to be very suspicious and
the opposing side becomes very appealing.

by j.lupo

I just started a thread about a news article that says the Senate rejected the proposal for now. It was a tie vote though.

This discussion is closed to new replies.