Convince me net neutrality is wrong.

[Deja Q]

To my understanding, getting rid of it will mean website owners will have to pay more for premium transmission. So will customers.

I saw an advert on television (!!!) claiming net neutrality is bad because people will have to pay more.

Huh?

And we already pay more. We already have a tiered system (56k vs various forms of broadband.) The politicians want this new system to only make things needlessly complex and take away FROM neutrality, which in turn makes web site owners pony up more too.


Or am I confused?

[Bluzmann57]

1. The cable companies say it's bad, so it is.

After all, big business always looks out for our best interests. And do I really need to add this :sarcasm: ?

[bahrbearian]

2. If it not Broken ,don't fix it.

[Nobody]

3. I can't do that

Because I think net neutrality is a good idea.

Take away net neutrality and you not only have a tiered system for speed, but you have a tiered system for access to information.

Webmasters already have the technology to limit bandwidth to a single user. Webmasters already have the means to require passwords to get to some of the features of the web site, sometimes that membership is because someone paid for it.

The people who want to get rid of net neutrality are interested in making much more of the Internet accessible to those with money. That will mean that you won't be able to go to the library, use their free access to look for a job if you're out of work or to research your high school term paper if your family doesn't have Internet access. Will they consider libraries exempt? Somehow I doubt it.

And if you do have a home Internet connection, you're going to pay twice. Once for the connection, once for the content.

[Deja Q]

6. Oh, I like neutrality in which the bandwidth isn't throttled for some...

The advert was against net neutrality but was saying net neutrality was bad for consumers. Needless to say, I got confused. Neutrality would be better because there are no additional premiums; we have enough 'premiums' fr the ridiculous cost of broadband (which, from what I've read on the internet, is said to be cheaper in China -- but I have no proof of that...)

[NashVegas]

4. I Went to UPS on Tuesday, Early Afternoon

To purchase 3-day shipping for xmas presents.

The rate for my package: about $11

If I wanted guaranteed three-day shipping, it would have been $40.

I took the risk on the regular shipping rate, and the package arrived on time.

But what if it hadn't?


This is what AT&T and the cable network providers want to do: create a 'fast' lane for people willing to pay more for the same service.

Only it won't really be a fast lane, you'll be getting the same service. Those who won't pay the extra fee will get screwed, unlike UPS where you only might get screwed.

But here's my tip of the day for potential content providers, should the darlings get what they want: copyright motherfucking everything on your site. Patent intellectual property for delivery methods used, layouts, etc.

[Igel]

5. About right.

Providers will be able to charge websites more for privileged access to the networks owned and maintained by the providers; under some scenarios, that'll apply only to upgraded networks. They don't have to charge more, but probably will. The tiers you aptly point out will suddenly sprout tiered tiers. The tier structure will be nearly fractal. It makes me all tiery eyed.

I look at all the various projections (everything from "only the mega-super-duper rich will be able to use the net, so all the good sites will be shut down" to "even grannie will have a neural implant and be able to access the Internet with gigabyte-per-second access speeds"). I ponder how much an analysis necessarily reflects a person's fears and hopes when there are so many assumptions to be made and so little information to be had. Then I find something more interesting and concrete to read, something much more firmly grounded in data, I don't know, formalist criticism of Russian Symbolist verse?

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I saw that commercial too

It was sponsored by the cable companies.

That was all I needed to hear.