Net Neutrality

[Fox McCloud]

I'd like to hear some opinions from both people for and against net neutrality here, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of it (or why it should or should not be implemented).

 

[sidster]

disclaimer: I'm not 100% aware of the details of Net Neutrality but the common sense says...

You don't want Internet Service Providers (ISPs) "influencing" their
customers' web "experiences" by "steering" them to "favorable" sites
and "penalizing" sites "unfavorable". Where a site might become
"favorable" due to either strategic partnership or by simply purchasing
its favorable status with the ISP, and competition to the ISP itself or
"favorable" sites is viewed as "unfavorable".

You can extend this "favorable" status further from being simply
business oriented to politically motivated.

So you can see the "evil" that can become ... That said, to get the
Government involved in regulation and enforcement of said "neutrality"
through law can be equally viewed as "evil".

IMO best way to combat this "evil" is through education of
consumers and then allowing the consumer to make their choice
wisely and hence influence and regulate said "neutrality".

 

[AisA1787]

A few random thoughts about it:

1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm happy with my internet experience. It's affordable and fast. I think the current system is working very well, and will only continue to improve.

2) I am highly skeptical of the ability of legislators to pass meaningful and most importantly harmless legislation, especially legislation regarding a highly complex technical issue like computer networking. Odds are they'll just screw things up, like usual.

3) Regulating which bits can go where when is the first step down the slippery slope. Next thing you know there will be a presidential candidate telling us that high speed internet access should be given to everyone, as if it were a basic human right and a societal moral imperative. Oh wait, we already have a candidate doing that -- Obama just loves him some "Universal Service Reform." Mmm mm good... "affordable broadband, with a specific focus on reaching previously un-served communities." What's not to like? Taxpayer-subsidized access to the information superhighway, brought to you by your friendly, local federal government employees....

4) The best way to put the brakes on innovation in an industry is to regulate that industry. See (1).

 

[Zarxrax]

Personally, I think net neutrality isn't a huge deal yet, but in the near future it very well may be.

Net neutrality legislation simply treats the symptom, rather than solving the source of the problem. For that reason, Ron Paul opposes net neutrality, but he would work to fix the problem at the source.

Without someone like Ron Paul in the lead though, I have absolutely no faith that the people in our government will try to fix ANYTHING at the source. So for that reason, I suppose I support some sort of net neutrality law, because it's about the only option we will have to keep the internet open and free.

 

[ARealConservative]

it's a farce.

The assumption is that as consumers, we are retarded and will be abused without government oversight.

How is it that we are retarded consumers but intelligent voters?


It's a farce. I hate to be hateful, but if you support network neutrality, you are a fool.

This is soak the rich and the patriot act all over again.

 

[Zarxrax]

ARealConservative: I don't see anything about the issue that has anything to do with consumer intelligence. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, when broadband providers in your area have a monopoly or duopoly on the market, and proceed to censor and filter the content that you have access to.

 

[ARealConservative]

ARealConservative: I don't see anything about the issue that has anything to do with consumer intelligence. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, when broadband providers in your area have a monopoly or duopoly on the market, and proceed to censor and filter the content that you have access to.

If an intranet company gains a monopoly or duopoly, then proceeds to filter content, what type of consumer would stand for it?

And why are you arguing for government intervention on a problem that hasn't actually happened? Preemptive force isn't just bad in war.

 

[Fox McCloud]

]Net neutrality legislation simply treats the symptom, rather than solving the source of the problem. For that reason, Ron Paul opposes net neutrality, but he would work to fix the problem at the source.

This has been my personal stance for a little while now (that it treats the symptom and not the problem).

I personally think the problem is the FCC, but that's me.

 

[Kludge]

Government has no right to interfere with property, and as such, cannot (.... should not >.>) impose restrictions as to how they use their property or do business with clients. No other argument can trump the right to property. Internet connectivity is elastic, get over it or find another ISP.

 

[wowabunga]

Censorship.... it could happen to you.

 

[Zarxrax]

You guys talk like property ownership is the most important thing in the world. Well, when the property is ILL-GOTTEN from years of government subsidies and protections, then they have NO RIGHT to that property.
The problem HAS already happened. ISPs out there are already filtering certain kinds of data, and have openly stated that they want to do so much more. I think a lawsuit is currently being filed against comcast over it.