A Clear Definition of Net Neutrality

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Network Neutrality
Updated: Dec. 2, 2010

The concept of “net neutrality’' holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally. It has been the center of a debate over whether those companies can give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for faster transmission, or to their own content, in effect creating a two-tier Web, and about whether they can block or impede content representing controversial points of view.

Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission has come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so has been in doubt since a federal appeals decision in April 2010 restricted its authority over broadband service.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html

AT&T, Comcast Face New Web Rules as Agency Sets Vote

A U.S. regulator said he’d press to pass Internet-service rules for companies led by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., setting up a clash with Republican lawmakers who told him Americans recently voted against expansive government.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski today asked the agency to vote Dec. 21 to bar Internet-service companies from blocking or slowing Web users’ access to lawful content and applications. The net-neutrality rules “ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation,” Genachowski said in a speech in Washington.

Genachowski, a Democrat appointed by President Barack Obama, proposed net-neutrality rules in September 2009, and debate has expanded to involve Congress, courts and companies. Proponents including technology companies said regulations are needed to keep the Internet free of restrictions, while opponents such as telephone and cable companies said rules aren’t needed and may stifle investment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/net-neutrality-vote-by-u-s-fcc-set-for-december-after-year-of-conflict.html

We all see what has happened to TV news now that gigantic corporations control it. Their control began during the Reagan years when he deregulated the FCC. What do you think will happen to web content, after the FCC is made powerless, while Big Business gains more control?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Care needs to be taken that in the process of defining and implementing net neutrailty we do not

end up enabling spammers.

Today any network is allowed to refuse traffic from any other network. Its one of the more effective ways to stop spam.

[Occulus]

2. No 'care' need be taken.

The internet is fine the way it is today.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. If the current laws are fine, then net neutrality is already with usand there is no issue

Clearly the internet is not fine when Comcast and bill a carrier like Level 3

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. There not "implementing" net neutrality. they're trying to abolish it...

so that sites owned by small competitors will be put on a slow lane in a two-tiered web. That way big companies can make smaller companies less competitive. Some Democrats and the FCC oppose these major changes to the internet because these large corporations can also block or hide sites like DU that put forth controversial ideas.

[boppers]

3. Content neutrality is bullshit.

If I do not want spammer content, I should not have to accept it.

edit: typo

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. "content" censorship means sites like DU can be put on the slow tier...

Since we bash large corporations here, they can make DU load slower and not appear on search engines if net neutrality is abolished.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

6. Kick! this OP needs more discussion

[Mimosa]

7. Exactly. n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. thanks

[boppers]

9. DU is already in the slow lane.

Most people refuse to pay for the fast lane. It's expensive as hell.

You see, the internet is not, and has never been, "neutral".

[Jeffersons Ghost]

10. DU hasn't seen the "slow lane" yet. Net neutrality abolishment will bury DU...

with all the anti-corporation rhetoric we spout here.

[boppers]

12. DU is delivered with the lowest quality/speed available.

If you want higher speeds, or if DU wanted higher speeds, you/they could pay more for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

[BzaDem]

11. Do you know what net neutrality actually is? It has nothing to do with what you are forced to accept

It has to do with what you are allowed access to.

No content neutrality? Then what's to stop Comcast from saying no DU, only Free Republic?

[boppers]

13. If I am not allowed to filter my network, because of some regulation, I am forced to accept traffic.

As far as no content neutrality, private network providers have always had the right to block material they find offensive/dangerous/illegal/annoying.

What's to stop Comcast? Competition that offers *more* sites/content/access that clients want keeps them in check. When Comcast merely tried to *slow down* a bandwidth hogging protocol (not even a website), hell was raised all over the country.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

15. exactly, now you're getting to the heart of the OP