Netowork Neutrality (I didn't get it)

**CivilWars** · 03-07-08, 02:59 PM

In most metropolitan areas you have the choice of cable, dsl, and satellite. Same options as you have for TV. How is it any different? I have only one choice for cable television service and 2 choices for satellite. Those 3 options can charge what they see fit, and if I do not like it I can choose another, or rabbit ears. Last I checked there was nothing in the constitution about life, liberty, and the pursuit of free Internet.

The local channels are only included because of how they choose to set their packaging. It wasn't long ago that Dish and DirectTV both charged extra for local channels via your satellite receiver. They determined it was bad business, and put them in the basic package.

**Consultant** · 03-07-08, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Why should the Internet be different than any other industry? Should all cable/dish channels be free, or included for one price? If you want the package that has all the premium channels, all the sports channels, or any other channels you pay more than the guy who just wants the basics. Why should the Internet receive any special exemption?

The difference is, well - i guess there isnt as much of a difference when you consider public access television channels...

But under the strictest anti-net neutrality legislation, Joe Blow wouldnt be allowed to make a Web page.

Places like TTP and such would be restricted and not allowed to continue operation.

If At&T wants to package groups of web pages like that picture shows - like cable channels...thats retarded.

AT&T didnt build the internet or the content, but somehow they feel they are entitled to profit from it and charge us access not just to the INTERNET via an ISP, but also to specific WEB SITES. Thats silly.

**Ewok** · 03-07-08, 03:02 PM

Or to put it another way...

It's like your telephone company telling you it costs more to talk to specific people (doesn't matter where they live) or it costs more to have certain conversations.

Oh you didn't want static in your call when talking to you Mom? gotta pay more

Oh you actually wanted to talk to your friend about politics? gotta pay more

This would be unheard of, but it's the very core of this whole debate. It's is not about paying for bandwidth, it's about the ability to change payment rates based on who your communicating with or what your communicating.

It's like singling out individual people you want to talk to on the phone and charing more and making certain conversations more expensive.

**Consultant** · 03-07-08, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

In most metropolitan areas you have the choice of cable, dsl, and satellite. Same options as you have for TV. How is it any different? I have only one choice for cable television service and 2 choices for satellite. Those 3 options can charge what they see fit, and if I do not like it I can choose another, or rabbit ears. Last I checked there was nothing in the constitution about life, liberty, and the pursuit of free Internet.

The local channels are only included because of how they choose to set their packaging. It wasn't long ago that Dish and DirectTV both charged extra for local channels via your satellite receiver. They determined it was bad business, and put them in the basic package.

They are providing you ACCESS to content that is put out by other companies.

With an ISP, they are charging you for ACCESS and under network neutrality, they seek to control the content as well.

Like he said...

If Comcast's basic package started with "Comcast News Channel 1", "Comcast Weather Channel 2", "Comcast Sports Channel 3" and you had to pay additionally for everything else...

Net Neutrality ensures the ability of free thinking people with access to the internet to publish those ideas in the form of content onto the Web without regulation.

AT&T thinks they should (along with other companies) control the content and the ability to publish content on the Web. (in a manner of speaking)

**Ewok** · 03-07-08, 03:06 PM

The internet is not just the world wide web and entertainment sites like youtube.

It's a general purpose communication structure. It needs to be protected as such.

Roads are generally a public resource for a reason; I view the internet as simply a digital road.

**Consultant** · 03-07-08, 03:07 PM

This leads into traffic shaping and bandwidth throttling based on Peer-to-Peer networks like gnutella and Limewire.

I dont think that companies should have to tollerate illegal use of their bandwidth, but Ewok is right.

Imagine Comcast or whoever scanning your packets and discovering that 80% of your bandwidth is going to play online games and then assessing you a surcharge for that.

That's the heart of the matter.

**_BuRn_** · 03-07-08, 03:17 PM

Content of the data should be no ISP's concern. I pay for the bandwidth to move that data.

Priority for my data is (well was...) and should be determined by how much I am willing to pay. I want a FIOS connection? - fine - but Ill pay for it. The content of the data again, should not matter. The internet is designed and must remain an open system. Allow providers to prioritize and shape how data is moved from node to node, or even if it can, in order to build price models or allow/disallow services is wrong. It breaks the very core of how this system is designed.

Pay for bandwidth, not for content. This cannot be stressed enough. If the ISP wants to cry foul on the amount of bandwidth your service utilizes well, they should not have sold it to you at that price. That is how completion on the net works and should remain. What we are trully dealing with is the overselling of bandwidth capacity. Well, that and the fact that greedy SOBs would like to segment the net apart. Content management is the end users responsibility, not the bandwidth provider.

**CivilWars** · 03-07-08, 03:21 PM

I have no problem with paying more for doing more. However, the larger issue is that content creators would be "taxed" by content providers, while content receivers would be charged extra by content providers. If that is approved then it truly will be the end of the internet as we know it. I now see the light. Thanks guys.

**nmeboat** · 03-07-08, 04:02 PM

http://wearetheweb.org/

i dunno...i kinda like this video better, plus it has a catchy tune...

http://www.wearetheweb.org/embededPlayers/theVideo.swf

**Manse** · 03-07-08, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ewok

The internet is not just the world wide web and entertainment sites like youtube.

It's a general purpose communication structure. It needs to be protected as such.

Roads are generally a public resource for a reason; I view the internet as simply a digital road.

Ewok has it. The comparisons to satellite/cable TV are off. Dish network put their own satellites into space, or at least the vast majority of them. They built the infrastructure on their own dime, and made money with subscriptions.

The telecoms used taxpayer dollars to put in the current cable/phone lines. Years ago, the US government said "all TV has to be digital by 2009." The telecoms said "we can't afford to do that, give us money to do it."

Now they want to charge for content and screw us twice.