Ace of Spades summed up the arguments on both sides succinctly in 2006:
I don't know much about this issue. People start talking about tubes and I just can't follow the techincal details.
This is pretty much the state of the debate as far as I can tell.
1) You put things into tubes.
a) There are many things that may be put into tubes.
b) But they break down into four broad categories:
i. Pictures of big-breasted lesbians hitting each other with pillows.
ii. Pictures of cats.
iii. Guys pretending to be big-breasted lesbians, trying to find other big-breasted lesbians, so they can punch the clown to dirty typing about hitting each other with pillows, resulting in thousands of dudes wacking off with other dudes while they're all pretending to be a lesbian stripper named "Summer Autumn."
iv. More pictures of cats.
2) There is only so much room in these tubes.
3) So some people would like to charge different users different amounts to fill the tubes with different things.
a) Some worry that without this scheme, low-tubewidth users will not be able to send each other pictures of cats.
b) But with such a scheme, high-tubewidth users will have to pay more to download video of big-breasted lesbians hitting each other with pillows.
4) Both sides of the debate lay claim to the virtues of promoting freedom, equal access, innovation, and capitalism.
a) But no one will tell me if which side is going to cost me more for logging on to AOL chat under the name "Summer Autumn."
5) Ergo: I care passionately about this issue, but I don't care, because I can't understand it, and no one will tell me how my clown-punching activities will be affected.
What Ace is saying is that the telcos want to charge the high-bandwidth users a higher price for hogging up the -finite- space on the internet. The government wants to keep the price for access equal. This isn't a clear-cut decision, but when in doubt...see my comment in Melkor's article.
From the New York Times
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, and the Federal Communications Commission has come out in favor of keeping things that way.This is a "when the going gets tough, the tough get going" situation for anti-statist, small-government folks. The telcos want these two-tiered systems because it costs them big money for the servers and transmission systems that enable the high-bandwidth communications. In other words, telcos feel that they make these different charges to keep their system running at a reasonable cost to the consumer.
Cable and telephone companies are talking, however, about creating a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane and a slow lane. Companies that pay higher rates would have their Web pages delivered to Internet users in the current speedy fashion. Companies and individuals that do not would be relegated to the slow lane.
In a significant decision, a federal appeals court ruled in April 2010 that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to impose the so-called “net neutraility” obligations."
Obama, as usual, is using this to increase statist control. From the same New York Times article:
President Obama declared in May 2009 that he is “firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be — open and free.” The FCC under the Obama administration is moving to add a fifth principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web."The telcos will rightly say that without the two-tiered system, rates will go up for everyone to enable them to keep the system functioning. The government doesn't want to allow telcos to charge people extra for high bandwidth useage, in order to keep the system 'fair'.
OK RTP'rs: here's the difficult decision: allow telcos to economically operate their system, or allow government to regulate the system and force higher rates on everyone to enable equal access/use. My answer is that private enterprise will eventually arrive at the right solution, as opposed to government regulating and raising rates on everyone. I admit that there are good arguments both ways and would not harshly criticize someone who thought net neutrality was a good idea. But, these are where the decisions are made that slowly ratchet up the control.
Show us your colors.
Yeah, I don't support Net Neutrality for the above efficiency reasons, and because I think striking down Net Neutrality gives emphasis to my arguments for protecting the internet outlined in the previous post. If we create higher tier/lower tier networks, I think it would make it easier for us to determine which non-essential personnel are restricted from the internet as well whom would receive priority traffic in the event of an emergency or attack.
ReplyDeleteI deeply, personally and very much hate the word FAIR? People that use mean the exact opposite. When people use the word "FAIRNESS" that means they are about to do something that is very unfair. I hate people that use that word. Tyranny is establishing itself under the guise of equality and taking care of everybody.
ReplyDeleteI am against Net neutrality. Where does the government have the power or authority to say how much a private company can charge its customers for its product or service, in this case bandwidth usage? The internet is private property. What would happen if companies could not make enough money to cover their cost in proving internet service or they had to charge unnecessary high prices due to having to treat each customer the same and this brought about a demand from the public for more government intervention? This would eventually lead to the demise of private ISPs and/or the government taking over the internet service providers. A monopoly is not a good thing even if it is a government monopoly. I don't know if this is a good analogy, but should the government be able to tell a trucking company to charge the same rate for hauling 5 tons of freight as it does for hauling 15 tons of freight? Hauling more weight takes more fuel and costs more money and there is a legal limit to how much a truck can weigh. This same argument for Net Neutrality could be used for all sorts of government intervention. Where would it stop? Having internet service is not a right; just like a job, housing, or food is not a right. The unhampered free market can handle this situation.
Who is pushing for this. President Obama. What are his beliefs and his vision of America? Why does he need to side step the courts by trying to get the ISPs declared a public utility? What is the beliefs of the head of the FCC?
Let the telco's try to be economically efficient themselves. Laissez Faire! Free Market! Capitalism!
ReplyDeleteI bleed red white and blue! Bitches!