Comments on: Net Neutrality: What It Could Mean

By: Mikazukinoyaiba

Mikazukinoyaiba — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:30:27 +0000

I don't understand how this guy ever thought the "free market" would take care of anything, despite that already it is the "free market" that has allowed telecos to screw consumers in Cable, Satellite, Cell Phones, and Texting for years.

Even further what is with this argument that the internet will change cable?!? Does he realize that isn't the friggin point of this damn article, yeah when your ISP does something you don't like you can change, except for in cases where they are the ONLY ISP IN YOUR AREA and you'd have to move in order to get a new one.

Or what to do when every ISP does the same, afterall you can't abstain from having the internet. Denialism and faith in the free market.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/ar...

By: dubzilla

dubzilla — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:47 +0000

This was a great post to read the comments on. Honestly I really was not informed about the issue. it was interesting to read the different post. However, I'm not sure that waiting until there is an issue is the best path to take. I think that from a business point of view. It would be advantageous for the providers. they could charge more money for the different of “tiers” of access that people want. Also they could charge websites more to be on a tier that had more access, giving them more advertising clout. If this issue way tied up after the fact (by the government) it might take enough time that the smaller websites that we all love could go under.

The picture scares me.

By: oneteam

oneteam — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:50:45 +0000

Your comparison to cable companies is actually ironic. Their business strategies will be changing and evolving as the internet allows people to access these same programs directly from the content providers and bypassing the cable company in the process, using the internet. So, their tier pricing will become less and less viable. The internet is the exact thing that will keep tier pricing from happening because it is open. If one provider is starting to gouge people for access to certain things, another one will take their business. Think AOL circa 1999. They gouged people for perceived value added content. Once people were saavy enough, they went elsewhere. We DON'T need the government in this instance. Let the market take care of itself. Have faith in the open, free market. (Don't get me started on healthcare.)

By: dubzilla

dubzilla — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:05:47 +0000

The picture scares me.

By: oneteam

oneteam — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:50:45 +0000

By: salhepatica

salhepatica — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:55:31 +0000

Your headline isn't very good — it falls under the same sort of confusion that allows Sen. McCain and his telco henchment to pretend that net neutrality means letting telcos do any damn thing they like, when it means the exact opposite. The headline “Net Neutrality: What It Could Mean,” followed by that very excellent graphic, makes it look like net neutrality WILL LEAD to the situation in the picture, when net neutrality would PREVENT it from happening.

By: esarphie

esarphie — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:39:40 +0000

Okay... here's the silliness. That whole scary thing that'll happen if net neutrality is NOT passed? That's now.

Right now.

Today.

You're reading this on your big scary, evil, end-of-the-world, ohmygod hidden evil telecom company fees are EVERYWHERE non-neutral internet, RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

It's one thing to hype the fear factor on the possible outcome of future untested legislation, but doing it for the way things are?????

Net neutrality may be good, may be bad, but my years on the internet seem to indicate that it's completely unecessary. If they want to pass a law saying the have to disclose bandwidth throttling, that'd be fine, but since I can (and have) change between cable, dsl, fiber optic systems, or simply flip carriers at will, I feel pretty secure with the way things are... if I don't like what my provider does, I've got a lot of other choices.

Or, to put it another way, I like to see a demonstrated NEED for new federal laws before they get written.

By: dponce80

dponce80 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:28:03 +0000

Hi Skeptikality. I don't think it's right to frame the problem at the ISP level. ISPs are nothing but bandwidth resellers, connected to large Internet backbones such as Qwest, Level 3 Communications, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel, etc. While your argument is correct that it would make no sense for ISPs to arbitrarily filter access to different websites, a lack of Net Neutrality would probably not affect us in that particular way.

Instead, we're hearing from the large NAPs or backbones (Qwest, ATT, etc. mentioned above, of which there are only a few) that they believe some websites (think Google) are using up a large chunk of their bandwidth and their infrastructure while paying essentially the same thing smaller sites such as mine are.

And while for a minute it would seem to make sense to allow them to charge more for users that need more, the problem with that is that at any moment they can turn the situation on its head. What happens when the network becomes SO congested that only "premium" sites with large bandwidth needs are able to pay for acceptable levels of traffic? They keep breezing along, while the smaller guys who are unable to pay for this kind of bandwidth experience a slowdown. Kind of like the carpool lane for the internet, only you need to be a major corporation with tons of cash in order to get in.

That's, in a nutshell, the problem with Net Neutrality, and why it's important to keep the nature of the Internet as it's been since its inception. Saying we should implement laws after a problem arises is tricky because once a business practice becomes accepted, it's hard to retroactively take it away. Just look at how the health insurance companies are kicking around at the prospect of having to adjust things they've been doing for years (like the pre-existing condition business).

In any case, just my two cents.

By: skeptikality

skeptikality — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:06:38 +0000

Fear-mongering and taking the extremist route is how political players make their causes seem noble and just.

I hate getting political on the web… But I enjoyed the discourse. Thanks!

By: Phlow

Phlow — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:57:09 +0000

Not sure if I've done this before, but after having this conversation with you and doing a little research, I think i've *gasp* changed my mind! Your argument makes more sense than any other I've heard against net neutrality, and its supported by people like Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight...

I've seen this graphic before, and while I did think it seemed a bit melodramatic, it made me fearful about losing the internet I hold dear! However, it seems like these fears are overblown, and if the problem does end up existing, we can deal with it then. Hopefully cooler heads like yours will prevail on both sides of the issue, and people will tackle the issue reasonably if it actually arises, rather than fear-mongering and taking the extremist route like the graphic displayed here.