Apparently, Congress is being urged by Big Telecom to hand control, & possibly censorship, of the Web over to them.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/neutrality.asp
Is this a serious threat? Could this actually pass?
Free Speech/Tech Savy Dopers, please provide input.
Possibly while you still can…
Okay, I don’t know much about this, but doesn’t that snopes article, and the news article it contains, indicate that the legislation is being processed to protect Network Neutrality? That’s how I read it.
How will this affect internet access in other countries? Will it only be America that is affected or will access in Europe be affected by it too?
Good question!
Wish I had *any kind * of an answer… 
I suspect that neutrality is a good idea, but I really have no grounds at all for thinking so - aside from thinking that the internet seems to have done spectacularly well with it, so a case for change needs to be made.
Not being in telco myself (and in this context, I’m including cable as part of telco), someone please correct any mis-statements I may make. At any rate:
Yes, it is a serious threat (if you are concerned about this sort of thing; just look at what has happened to “fair use” as concerns copyright). That’s not to say the Internet is going to just go away or anything, simply that it will cost more (or be slower if not paid for) for certain traffic.
First off, the Internet is not “free”, no matter what the telcos say. You pay for phone / cable / satellite service, just as your ISP does. Second, this is bad because ISPs are common carriers – data traffic is data traffic. Their job is to provide the means by which packets get where they’re going. What’s happening here (it seems to me) is that the telcos are also in the ISP business and therefore want to charge more for other ISPs (or particular types of traffic or websites) to use their data lines. Third, this violates a core (albeit idealistic) aspect of the Internet, which I suppose can be called openness. Part of the reason the Internet has exploded at the pace it has is exactly the lack of this type of restrictiveness.
Perhaps it’s inevitable – as soon as something becomes valuable, control is never far behind. Damn shame though, if it happens.
We just lost a BIG one.
http://news.com.com/Democrats+lose+House+vote+on+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6065465.html
But there’s still hope.
I was, honestly, a bit dubious about anything that gave power over the Net to the FCC.
Net neutrality is a horrible idea packaged in an attractive name. It’s not about blocking access to certain websites – it’s about whether or not network providers can charge companies in order to offer faster connections to their websites. For example, a network should be able to charge a website that is selling video over the internet more than a website like the Straight Dope, which isn’t causing as much volume over the lines. By putting a price on this service, networks can develop faster connections and help better serve consumers.
Net neutrality means that people who are hogging the lanes of the Internet superhighway won’t have to pay for their use of that highway. It’s special interest legislation wrapped in the idea of consumers rights.
If this idea were put into law (and thankfully it looks like it won’t), then it would give the government authority to force network providers to subsidize websites that have a lot of traffic, such as amazon or yahoo. It would also open the door to more government regulation of the Internet, which thankfully up until now has pretty much seen the government keep its hands off.
News Flash: Google doesn’t get its Net access for $19.95 a month just like Joe User. They use a lot of bandwidth, and pay accordingly.
Again, there is no such subsidy. The issue is preventing the leveraging of monopoly control of the “last mile” to degrade traffic from sites that don’t give them a double-dip payment (the bandwidth has, of course, already been paid for by the ISP’s customers).
**Question–do you, personally, own stock in any telecom firm? **
If so, you should have stated that in your post, on ethical grounds.
What? Are you nuts? Are you going to start questioning my ethics? I suppose you think that anyone who disagrees with you must do so because they have a financial stake in the matter, huh? No one could oppose net neutrality unless this opposition would make them money?
To play your idiotic game, though, let me say that I do not directly own any stock in a telecom firm (although I may in my mutual funds – I haven’t checked lately). If so, my stock ownership is of such a minimal amount that any benefit that would accrue to these companies from net neutrality being stopped would barely affect my net worth.
To turn the tables, do you own any Yahoo, Google, or other Internet company stock? After all, if net neutrality is forced on us, these companies stand to gain.
None whatever.
And now, your rage comes from…what? :dubious:
My question?
Or, my questioning?
Not the same…
No, the issue is whether or not a network provider and an Internet company should be able to enter into an agreement so that the company will pay the provider to allow the company to provide premium services and faster downloads. This type of payment for services will help to foster development of the Internet and allow for more consumer choice. Stopping companies from paying for a higher level of service means that we will all be deprived of that higher level of service.
Furthermore, the issue is also one of whether or not the FCC should have control over Internet pricing. I don’t feel comfortable turning over control of this to the government. The government should keep its hands off the Internet. Let it develop freely without government price controls.
Good to know. I guess we are both ethically clean.
It comes from both. Your question has the assumption that those who disagree with you do so because they will gain financially. It says that the opposing side of the argument is based on greed and nothing more. It, in essence, questions the motives of your opponents.
You need to realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue. My opposition to net neutrality doesn’t make me an evil person. My opposition is based on my belief that the Internet should be able to develop without government interference and that stifling market innovations is bad for consumers. It’s not based on greed. I will make no money one way or another regardless of the outcome of the debate (although we will all likely lose economically if net neutrality becomes law).
Furthermore, when do we have to start disclosing financial conflicts of interest here? I’m sure that plenty of people post here for positions that, if enacted into law, would make them some money either directly or indirectly. Are we going to start calling for disclosure whenever anyone disagrees with us? That seems a bit childish. It’s as if you can’t win an argument on its merits so you resort to name calling.
Hokay. How long a transition time do you propose before every telephone and cable company loses their various monopoly franchises?
(I mean, seeing as how you are all brimming with integrity, you couldn’t possibly advocate a selective lack of government intervention depending on whose interests are served thereby…)
Nobody is being stopped from paying for a higher level of service. Check out the pricing structure of any ISP, and you’ll see a range of options from personal dialup accounts to bundles of T1 business packages.
No, they don’t stand to gain anything. They stand to not lose the full use of the bandwidth for which they have already paid (because somebody downstream cut a deal with somebody else to shunt them onto the slow lane).
Basically, the issue is similar to water rights – no, you don’t get to build a dam on your own property if it cuts off the flow to other people’s property.
I don’t support government-instituted monopolies. The laws that prop up cable companies and prevent competition should be eliminated. I also don’t support any government-instituted telephone monopolies, although I’m unsure what sort of monopolies continue to exist for telephone service.
And I don’t advocate selective lack of government intervention. I know you are trying to be a smart ass here and somehow expose me as a hypocrite, but it’s not going to work. I don’t oppose net neutrality because I support big telecom companies; I oppose net neutrality because I oppose government intervention in the marketplace.
Play your “gotcha!” games elsewhere.
I’m not taking about consumer Intnernet access. I’m talking about a company, down the road, that, say, wants to sell movies over the Internet. That company should be able to work out a deal with the network provider wherein the provider would charge it a rate to develop the capacity to deliver that product at a faster, more reliable rate. Or something like that. I’m not sure what the future will hold, but I know we shouldn’t put up roadblocks that will prevent companies from working with network providers to develop new modes of Internet delivery options. Net neutrality would effectively prevent such innovations.
Try to run your own land lines and you’ll find out.
I’m afraid you do, unless and until you make opposition to net neutrality explictly contingent upon the removal of the local last-mile monopolies.
To whom?
Again, the market as it exists allows businesses to buy extra bandwidth if they need it – I’m sure Google buys a lot more bandwidth than an ordinary residential or small-business user. Net neutrality has no effect on that.