Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is Net Nuetrality?

Last response: in Forum Feedback
Share
May 31, 2006 1:40:52 PM

Hello from Florida. The TV is being flooded with ads telling people to call there Rep to vote no one net Neutrality. What is it? Is it good or bad. :?:

More about : net nuetrality

May 31, 2006 2:16:10 PM

Net neutrality is the belief that all packets on the internet are equal. Many co's want to be able to charge for 'higher priority' delivery of data packets. The concern is that this could lead to a number of problems, people who don't pay getting effectively cut out because they're 'lower class' or something...

You'll have to read up a bit on what they're talking about specifically in FL, because each side picks up a buzzword, and it may not be exactly what we think it is...

Mike.
May 31, 2006 11:31:19 PM

Basically the idea of net neutrality is that ISPs can must offer everyone the same download speed. What ISPs want to be allowed to do is to be able to charge for higher download speeds. The problem is that the large corporations can afford to pay these fees. Smaller companies and most individuals won't be able afford to pay these extra fees so there internet offerings will take longer to download or access. This is especially important for multimedia. If there isn't Net Neutrality, large companies will dominate the web. I don't think most people want the Microsofts, Sonys, or other multinationals controlling the web. Right now the web is the most open and equal medium available, which, at least as far I'm concerned, is what makes it so terrific. Granted there are problems, e.g., child porn or hate sites, but I value the freedom. In my unbiased opion, you want net neutrality. :D 
Related resources
September 3, 2006 1:57:42 PM

I would think that's it that last 100 meter set of providers that would more and likely end up being the ones not net-neutral. They have all the incentive, in terms of being able to charge (and probably charge both ways, to the end user, and to the provider).

I notices the FCC chairman in the US spoke up recently, saying he did not see the need for laws to mandate net neutrality. I am afraid I am going to have to differ. Granted, there's already a serious performance difference between a low end server set up, and someone that's put on multi-site with distributed servers and very high speed upload interconnections to the internet. But it does seem like the user should at least be able to control their end of the Quality of Service settings and traffic. We're paying for the pipe, a lot when you get down to it, the bandwidth that's given out in the US (particularly on DSL, but also for cable) is pretty lousy compared to some other places. The proividers should, in my opinion:

1. Have competition (no single source contracts ala phone/cable).

2. Compete on bandwidth (absolute --> want to charge me more, give
me a fatter pipe, I would pay more for 100Mb and 1Gb, up/down/etc.)
September 3, 2006 2:54:13 PM

Quote:
I would think that's it that last 100 meter set of providers that would more and likely end up being the ones not net-neutral. They have all the incentive, in terms of being able to charge (and probably charge both ways, to the end user, and to the provider).

I notices the FCC chairman in the US spoke up recently, saying he did not see the need for laws to mandate net neutrality. I am afraid I am going to have to differ. Granted, there's already a serious performance difference between a low end server set up, and someone that's put on multi-site with distributed servers and very high speed upload interconnections to the internet. But it does seem like the user should at least be able to control their end of the Quality of Service settings and traffic. We're paying for the pipe, a lot when you get down to it, the bandwidth that's given out in the US (particularly on DSL, but also for cable) is pretty lousy compared to some other places. The proividers should, in my opinion:

1. Have competition (no single source contracts ala phone/cable).

2. Compete on bandwidth (absolute --> want to charge me more, give
me a fatter pipe, I would pay more for 100Mb and 1Gb, up/down/etc.)


Have to agree, especailly with number 1. I think the major broadband problem in the US is there is no meaningful competition. I also don't have a problem with the consumer paying more for faster speeds, if there is real competition. The problem is that most of our politicians in both parties follow the money and that's the large cable and phone companies. Alsol true for large content providers that lead to our draconian DRM laws. In addition, when it comes to technology, most of our politicians are at best ignorant when not down right stupid. and corrupt Given the US is still the richest nation in the world, the distribution of technology thourgh out the population is closer to that of a 2nd tier country.
September 3, 2006 7:55:43 PM

Some interesting info here. I found the link on Slashdot:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

You'll have to decide for yourself. Personally, I'm in support of this Net Neutrality push.
September 3, 2006 11:10:09 PM

Interesting site. If there numbers are acurate it shows 26 For and 14 Against Net Neutrality, which is encouraging
October 2, 2006 10:29:08 PM

Basically, without net neutrality comcast for example, could charge yahoo to get faster speeds than google to encourage users to go to yahoo instead of google.

Was gonna post the savetheinternet link but barnes beat me to it..

Funny quote from Ted Stevens, the chairman of the commerce(as well as science/transportation) commitee, who is the one trying to kill net neutrality:

"The internet is a series of tubes"- Ted Stevens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rZEi70UyJs


At the moment, with net neutrality in place, ISP's "MUST" deliver there users to sites at the maximum capable speed, which relies on the sites bandwidth / the users bandwidth. So currently, there is no middleman, there is just the user and the website/servers.

In the future if Stevens gets his way, small sites would get put in the slow lane, if they can't pay up for the faster access even after they pay for there faster connection / servers.


"William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc."
October 2, 2006 10:54:47 PM

What gets me is that the idiot polliticians don't seem to understand that this will affect them, their families, friends, other contributors. Guess they're willing to sell their spouses and kids for a few bucks. We definitely have the best goverment money can buy. :evil: 

Shouldn't have used that emoticon, now the NSA will be watching all my posts, watch what you say.
!