Net Neutrality

[daPyr0x]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up around here before.

Net Neutrality is the name that's been given to the fight towards governance insuring our internet providers aren't allowed to determine what parts of the internet (or which downloads) we are able to reach, and aren't allowed to manipulate our experience [ie. through bandwidth shaping] based on which content we choose.

There are a lot of lobby groups involved trying to encourage this into legislation.

There are also a lot of people arguing against it. Glenn Beck, has been firing shot after shot at the movement, insisting that legislation to ensure the internet is unfiltered and entirely accessible is a socialist method of removing "the truth" from being broadcast by the media.

Your turn. I want to hear some different opinions (hopefully, on both sides of the coin).

[Wil]

One of the most important things to me is net neutrality. I was generally neutral toward Fox News, as mostly I found them to be humorous. However, recently I got an email from http://www.savetheinternet.com/ telling me that Fox News/Glen Beck is against the FCC, which I find to be completely insane. The FCC is one of the only government agencies that I completely respect.

The FCC are the ones trying to prevent companies like AT&T from filtering the internet. AT&T, if they had their way, would have the right to accept money from companies to prioritize content across their routers, or even completely block access to things like bit torrent. Meaning, Yahoo could pay AT&T to make it so their content is processed faster than that of Google, or Apple could pay AT&T so that content from Amazon's MP3 store is completely blocked.

GAH. This pisses me off so much that I can't even calm down enough to express my hate. Basically, if you don't want to see things like below, then you're pro-FCC and you WANT legislation that gives the FCC the right to monitor content providers and preserve the internet's neutrality.

[jotabe]

I just have a couple of questions i think they are relevant:

-In US highways, are highway owners allowed to charge you differently depending on the kind of vehicle you have, depending on which company you work for, depending on your need to use rest areas, or depending on your eventual destination?

-Do ISPs own the lines through which the internet signal travels? Do they own the physical placement of the lines? Do they own the pieces of land where the lines are?

[Satya]

I just have a couple of questions i think they are relevant:

-In US highways, are highway owners allowed to charge you differently depending on the kind of vehicle you have, depending on which company you work for, depending on your need to use rest areas, or depending on your eventual destination?

The highway owners are the people who use them. That may have been your point, though. The taxpayers own them; their taxes and tolls go to towards establishing and maintaining said roads.

-Do ISPs own the lines through which the internet signal travels? Do they own the physical placement of the lines? Do they own the pieces of land where the lines are?

Of course not. I think even if some providers decide they want to screw their users over, people aren't going to go for it. If there's one thing Americans are, its consumers - and if a company isn't providing consumers with what they want/need, someone else will step in to provide it. I think if some companies decide to tier their products, some other company(ies) will offer something else.

[daPyr0x]

Being in Canada means I don't know US specifics for certain, so I could be wrong...

I just have a couple of questions i think they are relevant:

-In US highways, are highway owners allowed to charge you differently depending on the kind of vehicle you have, depending on which company you work for, depending on your need to use rest areas, or depending on your eventual destination?

Well, the highways are owned by the state, not 'owners' (despite the "sponsor" status along some sections); which would suggest that the answer is no. However, some states have toll highways where tolls vary depending on vehicle size; and most states have programs to tax operators of transport trucks as well. I guess that means the answer to that question is "yes and no."

-Do ISPs own the lines through which the internet signal travels? Do they own the physical placement of the lines? Do they own the pieces of land where the lines are?

That, again, is a very loaded question without an easy answer. For some ISPs, the answer is yes - they do own the lines. For other ISPs, the answer is no, they lease the line use from other providers. However, the placement of much of those lines was heavily subsidized by the government in order to insure connectivity for the whole country. It could be said that the lines are as much owned by the public as they are the companies who built them.

Wil: I love that graphic - gives a great example of the road we're currently travelling down. All these capatilistic greed-monkeys trying to screw their customers out of as many pennies as they can...

[Rei]

Well, the highways are owned by the state, not 'owners' (despite the "sponsor" status along some sections); which would suggest that the answer is no. However, some states have toll highways where tolls vary depending on vehicle size; and most states have programs to tax operators of transport trucks as well. I guess that means the answer to that question is "yes and no."

I'm not overly critical of the different costs for varying sizes of vehicle when it comes to toll booths. The reason for the different costs is because larger vehicles place more stress on the roads and hasten the need for repair, so it naturally follows that if there is going to be a toll, they will have to pay a bit more.

That said, insofar as the websites we visit do not contain illegal content, we should not have what we visit controlled. It is a sufficient control that a website with more data or streaming will load slower with a internet speed. The idea that companies could include website access packages is displeasing. When they do that with television channels, it is understandable, because that is the only way to divide more expensive options from less expensive options (although I wish they would find more efficient ways to do that, too). It's not like you need to wait for your television programme to load. But with the internet, the time it takes for a site to load should be the main issue, not which websites or "channels" you have access to.