# Let's talk Net Neutrality **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 18, 2017, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971 "2017-08-18T13:05:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/1 "2017-08-18T13:05:12Z")
Cecil addressed the Net Neutrality debate in [this week’s column.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3354/what-s-the-worst-outcome-in-the-net-neutrality-debate?) He said: > [@](#): > > …the concept of net neutrality refers to the principle that, to crib from the Harvard Business Review, “a broadband internet provider should not block, slow, or otherwise unfairly discriminate against any website or online services.” The examples of what this might look like, as you note, tend to invoke a “tiered” Web, where premium pricing buys you faster, better service, or maybe it costs more to access bandwidth-heavy sites like Netflix. We already have, and always have had, a tiered Web. My Internet speed is dependent upon what I pay my ISP; faster service costs more money. This is nothing new. What Cecil should have said is this: “…where premium pricing buys you faster, better service according to content.” That is where the fear is – if your ISP wants to slow down (or speed up) your data _for any reason,_ they will be able to if Net Neutrality is not the law. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/2 "2017-08-18T13:56:33Z")
I posted this on GiraffeBoard back in 2010: > [@AHunter3](#): > > For purposes of this topic, please imagine yourself as a content PROVIDER, not (merely) a content CONSUMER. > > Do you have a personal web site with content on it? You qualify in real life. > OK here’s the deal: without net neutrality, it might take Joe WebBrowser considerably longer to download/view YOUR website content than the content of, let’s say, YouTube, or LiveJournal, or FaceBook. > > The latter sites’ advantage assumes they are willing to pay extra to get their bytes streamlined so they land on your screen more rapidly than some fly-by-nite site like, say “Giraffe Boards”, which elects not to pay the premium. > > Note that this is a different issue than the issue faced by sites which simply don’t invest in the hardware and networking pipeline sufficient to support their traffic, such as one might experience by going to the Straight Dope Message Boards. Having a robust server and a fast internet connection to support one’s site won’t get you in the premium fast-loading zone if you don’t pay the surcharge to have your bytes fast-forwarded to those who have requested them. > > At worst, the internet becomes TV: all the neat cool quirky innovative nonmainstream sites die off because no one is willing to wait for their slow-ass pages to load. And they can’t afford to pay the premium to have their content delivered quickly. Ignore the vintage interboard snark; the point is that net neutrality is of particular relevance to a democratic participation in being a content provider (or being able to select from a wide range of content providers). It may also have other consumer-centered relevance but the biggest threat from ending net neutrality is that it could raise the $$$ bar to being able to put your own content out there; that it could turn the internet into “television where you can directly order the products in the ads”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/3 "2017-08-18T15:06:10Z")
The biggest problem, I think, is that consumer Internet access is mostly sold by the phone company and the cable company, both companies which are seeing their main product outcompeted by Internet-based products. And since both the phone company and the cable company are monopolies in most places, they’re fighting back by hamstringing their competition, instead of by improving their own product, or moving into more productive lines. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/4 "2017-08-18T15:13:50Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Cecil addressed the Net Neutrality debate in [this week’s column.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3354/what-s-the-worst-outcome-in-the-net-neutrality-debate?) > > He said:We already have, and always have had, a tiered Web. My Internet speed is dependent upon what I pay my ISP; faster service costs more money. This is nothing new. > > What Cecil should have said is this: “…where premium pricing buys you faster, better service according to content.” That is where the fear is – if your ISP wants to slow down (or speed up) your data _for any reason,_ they will be able to if Net Neutrality is not the law. Is that what “or maybe it costs more to access bandwidth-heavy sites like Netflix” means? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/5 "2017-08-18T15:42:28Z")
Not exactly. If I’m accessing Netflix, then I’m getting TV shows from somewhere other than Cox Cable, and so I’m taking myself out of the customer pool for Cox TV. Cox (which happens to be my ISP) doesn’t like that, so it throttles my connection to Netflix (or charges me more for the privilege of not being throttled). But I could use the exact same amount of bandwidth downloading (say) black-hole merger gravitational wave forms, and that’s no threat at all to Cox, and so they won’t throttle that. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/6 "2017-08-18T17:18:42Z")
We’ve had a look at the pros and cons of net neutrality this week. [Neo-Nazi site’s publisher says he’s got no home on internet](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/neo-nazi-sites-publisher-says-hes-got-no-home-on-internet/) This (and let’s get it out of the way right now) vile, repulsive piece of scum has had his domain canceled by both GoDaddy and Google. In a neutral net, the domain registrars would be treated as common carriers, not responsible for (legal) content, and not allowed to block it, either. While Cecil mentioned [nytimes.com](http://nytimes.com), we now have a non-theoretical, real-world situation where the people who run the Internet are deciding what (vile, repulsive piece of scum) legal content you can have access to. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/7 "2017-08-18T17:41:48Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > In a neutral net, the domain registrars would be treated as common carriers, not responsible for (legal) content, and not allowed to block it, either. Are you saying that’s good or bad? In quite the same way that the telephone company cannot cut off your conversations if you insult someone or express glowing admiration for Hitler’s painting skills (two coats!). As a First Amendment Theorist, I’d say that is a good thing. But even if you support ISPs cancelling accounts for content reasons, the end result won’t be as your ideal; there will always be someone who is eager to host scum, whether for ideological or profit reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/8 "2017-08-18T18:40:50Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > …This (and let’s get it out of the way right now) vile, repulsive piece of scum has had his domain canceled by both GoDaddy and Google. > > In a neutral net, the domain registrars would be treated as common carriers, not responsible for (legal) content, and not allowed to block it, either… Hosting is really a much lesser concern. There is no significant barrier to entry for web hosting, anyone moderately tech savvy can even do it themselves: > **[How to Host a Website Locally for Free on PC, Mac, or Linux](https://www.wikihow.com/Host-Your-Own-Website-for-Free)** > > Host a website locally on your computer for free using MAMP or LAMP Do you want to host a website yourself for free? There are plenty of web hosting companies to choose from, and some offer free hosting. However, free hosting services tend... If web hosting services choose to discriminate based on content, it’s still fairly easy and inexpensive to get your content out there. If you don’t have the tech savvy, maybe it’s a little difficult to find an IT professional to help you if you’re a Nazi, but I’m not sure that there’s any pressing regulatory concern there. It might also be fairly difficult to find somebody to mow your lawn or fix your plumbing if you’re a Nazi. If the only barrier to getting your content out there is that you can’t find anyone to help you to do it because they think you’re an asshole, I really don’t think that’s something that needs to be addressed through regulation. It’s the ISP infrastructure (the physical cables going into everyone’s homes) that is a monopoly or oligopoly with a massive barrier to entry. If the ISP won’t carry your content, or the ISP demands an extortionate price to carry your content at acceptable speeds, then you _are_ screwed. So it’s the ISP services where there’s a pressing need to enforce content neutrality. If a Nazi has figured out how to provide his content, I don’t think the ISP should be allowed to block it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/9 "2017-08-18T23:27:19Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > We’ve had a look at the pros and cons of net neutrality this week. > > [Neo-Nazi site’s publisher says he’s got no home on internet](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/neo-nazi-sites-publisher-says-hes-got-no-home-on-internet/) > > This (and let’s get it out of the way right now) vile, repulsive piece of scum has had his domain canceled by both GoDaddy and Google. > > In a neutral net, the domain registrars would be treated as common carriers, not responsible for (legal) content, and not allowed to block it, either. > > While Cecil mentioned [nytimes.com](http://nytimes.com), we now have a non-theoretical, real-world situation where the people who run the Internet are deciding what (vile, repulsive piece of scum) legal content you can have access to. Net neutrality really applies to ISPs, not hosting sites. There are many, many hosting sites but many Americans may have only one or two ISPs to choose from. So, let’s not confuse the issue here – if they can’t find a hosting site, that’s not really a net neutrality issue. If their content is blocked by the ISP, that may be a net neutrality issue, depending on whether the content is legal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-net-neutrality/793971/10 "2017-08-19T02:05:08Z")
Another item is linkage between ISPs and services. What if your ISP is owned by Disney and you want to watch Netflix? Or vice-versa? What if you find that, in order to get acceptable service, you need to employ multiple ISPs and put a complex router in your house?