Debate and Discussion

Where do YOU stand on Net Neutrality?
SpANG at 1:29PM, March 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Since I posted the underhandedness of a certain cable company regarding this matter, it's become clear to me that some people don't understand the principles of Net Neutrality, and what the consequences could be if NN goes away. So here's the basic rundown, and how it all happened.

Sites like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are garnering A LOT of traffic. In the very near future, with streaming movies and the like, these companies will be getting even more traffic and using even more bandwidth.

ISP's say “we're running out (or will run out) of resources to appease your traffic.” So they want sites like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft to pay more $$ to get “preferred treatment”. Meaning, if the average user goes to Google to watch a video, their speed won't slow down.

And that's where it falls apart. ISP's want to control where you go, based on who pays them more. That means that any site that can actually pony up the dough will get the audience, but other sites that cannot afford it will always be in the slow lane.

Net Neutrality is what we have now, not in law but in principle. An even playing field where gets the chance to gain an audience, whether you go to CVS.com or buckeyehealthmart.com. It is a principle that needs to be preserved.

Those opposed say that “the government should keep their hands off the internet”. Yeah! Sounds good, right? The only thing is that they don't tell you that the ISP's will become the official “gatekeepers” of internet access. The first thing you have to consider is that you ALREADY pay ISP's for internet access. You also accept rate increases and different levels of speed through them (cable modem, DSL, etc.). This effectively allows these ISP's permission to not only tier services that way, but these ISP's won't have to upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate your internet needs. Not only that, but they will be able to effectively “double dip” for profits, between YOU and the Corporations willing to pay for the fast lane of traffic.

And yes, sites like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft aren't really ‘fighting for the little guy’. They are fighting this because they don't want to pay the money for something they get for free. But in this case, they are on the right side. Remember, no matter which way this goes, THOSE SITES will have enough money to not be affected. However, any site that is not already a HUGE player in the internet will never even get a shot at an audience.

Imagine great sites like YouTube, ebay, or even Google and Yahoo never getting the audience to BECOME popular. All of them started small and independently from any major corporation. How does this personally affect YOU? Imagine reading your comics (and others reading your comics) at slow speeds. Do you think you'd get the audience you have now? Do you think you'd even have a chance of getting a larger audience?

Some people understand all points of view but just disagree. Others just don't understand it at all or ignorantly call the opposing side “propaganda” to promote thier own agenda. It's hard with all the half truths out there. Though effective, the right way to win an argument is not by cheating people to your side.

It boils down to this argument:

Opponents say “keep government legistlation out of the internet.”

Proponents of it say “but if the legislation to keep it AS IT IS RIGHT NOW stays out, only the rich corporations will profit from the internet.”

The sad fact of the matter is that the internet, as we know it, is going to change. Check it out for yourself and come back and talk about it.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Site opposed to NN
http://www.handsoff.org/blog/

Sites for NN
http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/neutrality/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/


“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
StaceyMontgomery at 5:15PM, March 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I'm with SpANG. Net neutrality is really important. The Net has been a huge source of new wealth - and you don't kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Without neutrality, the Net is only for businesses that *already* have money. So much for innovation!

For some reason, both of the current democratic candidates seem to be FOR Net Neutrality, John McCain is against it. I'm not sure how that works (it doesnt seem like a left/right issue to me) but there you are.

And of course, without net Neutrality, webcomics like ours are doooomed.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
albone at 6:42AM, March 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 413
joined: 10-27-2006
I would hope this is something where the voice of the majority can triumph over money and big business.
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
mapaghimagsik at 7:14AM, March 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Just like FISA, huh?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
SpANG at 9:36AM, March 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
StaceyMontgomery
For some reason, both of the current democratic candidates seem to be FOR Net Neutrality, John McCain is against it. I'm not sure how that works (it doesn't seem like a left/right issue to me) but there you are.
It shouldn't be, but that's the way it's being spun. Net Nuetrality is an IDEA is the way the web is run right now. But in order to keep ISP's from becoming the gatekeepers, Net Nuetrality has to become legislation.

That's the argument from the right: “keep the government out of my internet”. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have a problem with big businesses controlling it.

That's why sites like “Hands Off the Internet” are so confusing to people. Either way, hands will be put on the internet. Government or corporations. Your choice.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
SpANG at 2:44PM, March 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Here's an excellent and informative film:

“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:58PM, March 7, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
One should be a member of the EFF, if possible :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Scardy at 5:16PM, March 13, 2008
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 2-6-2006
The rich just want to get richer.
I wonder why that is?
They're so afraid of losing dollars from their bottom line, they are willing to sacrifice everyone else.

“We've dug ourselves in pretty deep this time.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:24PM
Naughtelos at 3:21PM, March 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 218
joined: 12-2-2007
Well, corporations irk me, and the current state of the government irks me. So, this seems like a bit of a Catch22, imo. Whoever we toss power into the hands of could easily abuse it, and neither side really gives a damn about the “little guy”, so it'll be bad, any way you look at it. Furthermore, both options are the same thing in the big picture, selling your rights out to a mega-conglomerate who sees you as just another meat-drone. But, you have to be a happy meat-drone, so both sides claim to represent the greater good, when all they want is cold, hard, cash. Sad but true.

If I had to make a choice, I'd have to go for Net Neutrality, so long as it stays ABOUT keeping the net free for all and not censorship, the second it crosses that line, I'm starting a revolution, dammit. Private servers for all! *cough* Alright, now that that's out of my system, I really can't think of a serious, logical situation that doesn't involve greed, corruption, lag spikes and free speech infringement, or all of the above. Therefore, all we can really do is sit and make the best of it, excluding a total overhaul of the net, which thows more of our money into the pockets of the next slavering megacorp in line anyway. So, I'm open to suggestions, otherwise, I'm just going to be complacent and making the best of it. These are dark times when that seems like the best solution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
laughing warlock at 6:45PM, March 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 16
joined: 1-31-2007
Net neutrality now and forever. The last thing we need is the cooperations getting their hands in the this great neutral playing field. Webcomics and no-name music THRIVE on net neutrality. It's impact on the world made time declare us man of the year one time :D.
I'll remember you in therapy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:28PM
eye776 at 3:55AM, March 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 8
joined: 3-21-2007
I watched the video… what a ruckus… and sensless as well. Look for example at YouTube. Post something out of the line, it gets deleted. Look at all major BB's and Content distributors. The internet is ALREADY regulated, for the most part, by the so called “politically fair” treatment among people. Not just that, but lazy consumers DO NOT want to learn the “tech behind the tech” (as most of you, most probably don't care about what's inside a console or a TV set.)

So the corporations do what they always did best. They hire specialists, give them COLD HARD $$$, resarch what our lazy asses fancy, twist it their way, and then give it to us as a service. It will happen again, it's only normal for it to happen as long as the content that people create is considered useless by 90% of the rest of the world. And BTW, this won't be THAT major of an issue, since the movie didn't state it, but only 20-30% of the wold's population is connected to the internet, and (A LARGE ESTIMATE) at most 32% of the people actually use internet services.

Meanwhile, let's sit back, relax and se what technology spits out next for us. It was written press, radio technology, internet, so the real question here is not will internet get nabbed by rich people, it's WHAT'S NEXT AFTER the internet?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
SpANG at 12:09PM, March 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
eye776
I watched the video… what a ruckus… and sensless as well. Look for example at YouTube. Post something out of the line, it gets deleted. Look at all major BB's and Content distributors. The internet is ALREADY regulated, for the most part, by the so called “politically fair” treatment among people. Not just that, but lazy consumers DO NOT want to learn the “tech behind the tech” (as most of you, most probably don't care about what's inside a console or a TV set.)
You say you watched the videos, but given this statement you clearly don't understand what this is about.

This is about PUBLIC ACCESS to a website you own or are a part of. This is about the greed of a few entities controlling WHERE YOU GO on the internet.

This has nothing to do with censorship within a particular privately-owned site.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
lazymangaka at 10:38PM, April 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 4
joined: 5-25-2007
Net neutrality is absolutely the only way to be on the internet. Anything else is just corporate censorship and is, in this poster's humble opinion, evil. EVIL. EEEEEEVIL.


eye776
Meanwhile, let's sit back, relax and se what technology spits out next for us. It was written press, radio technology, internet, so the real question here is not will internet get nabbed by rich people, it's WHAT'S NEXT AFTER the internet?

Wait–seriously? AFTER the internet? The internet is nothing short of the culmination of all other forms of communicative technology. It is the very concept that is linking the television, phone, and radio services. The ONLY question that still exists is what will they come up with next for the internet. Where can we take it now? What more can it do?
It happens.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:28PM
plas at 12:40PM, April 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 47
joined: 4-5-2008
First and foremost I am absolutely for net neutrality. That being said I don't really see this issue (specifically the sectioning off of bandwidth to websites which receive more traffic) as being something which will drastically effect smaller, independent websites. The fact of the matter is that the sheer amount of bandwidth which the ISP's control is so huge that sectioning off a portion of it will not really impact the net as a whole. They would have to portion off a significant amount of their bandwidth for it to even begin to effect other websites and result in a significant enough slowdown for it to effect the average end user.

Not to mention the fact that they are running this as a business and if they did significantly impact the speed of uploading on websites that weren't paying them for a premium to the point where the end user was able to see the difference then it would result in angry customers and most likely have a negative impact on their business. I see this as yet another attempt by a big corporation to grab more money, which sucks of course because the last thing I want is for them to profit unfairly, but not something that will as of right now translate down to the end user in any way, shape or form. The real question, in my opinion, is whether or not this is the first step in a direction we don't really want our net to go.

To that end I'd like to point out an analogy I love to use when describing the effect of the net to people. I have always viewed the net as frontier territory, much in the same way that the “Wild West” was viewed in the past. In essence it is an uncharted territory which represents the very forefront of expansion. The question we have to consider is the reason why the west was “won.” To put it in a nutshell (because I have to get to work and don't have much time :P) The west was won because the frontier space was finite. There was an actual amount of it which we would inevitably explore and settle, it was an inevitability.

The net, if we continue along these lines, is also uncharted territory. The difference, though, is that the net is not a finite space, and is actually growing at an exponential rate. Moreover it is growing in two ways at once. On the one hand the actual material space of the net is growing, but also the amount of bandwidth we have to access the net is growing at the same time. It reached the point, a long time ago, where our capability to track the growth of the net and map out all of it at once is an impossibility. We will never be able to track 1) all of the spaces on the web, and 2) all of the traffic of the web. It has become a self-sustaining system which is impossible to monitor, in essence a frontier zone which we can never fully settle.

Much in the same way as the “Wild West,” there are portions which are settled and have a form of order imposed upon it, but there is still an immensely vast space which is not, and cannot be, controlled. That space is the future of the net, and the place where Net Neutrality truly comes into play. The more that order is imposed upon certain portions of the net, the more new areas of true independence will arise to combat this.

To this end I don't think we will ever be in danger of truly losing our Neutrality. Regardless of this fact though, I don't like the idea of any large corporation even attempting to impose order on it, plus I have a serious problem with ISP's but that might be due to the fact that my ISP just put a download cap on my service (60 G a month just isn't enough :P).
I has no picture :(
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:46PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved