Net Neutrality Discussion

OK, if we're talking about Net Neutrality, then this really is government horning in on free enterprise to regulate access, so I'm definitely against.  That picture to the left is part of 'the internet'.  It's not a magical place of infinite bandwidth.  They are massive arrays of huge power-sucking servers connected by high speed fiber and microwave communications.  They have limits as to what they can do.  I had to post this response rather than comment, because it was too big.

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.

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."

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.

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.