Net Neutrality

[peggy]

On the flip side, what about content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Hulu or VOIP providers using Comcast's (or whoever) network to deliver their content. Should they be able to pay the various network owners for additional bandwidth to improve their user's quality of service?

My biggest problem with the government regulating the internet as a utility is simply that, the government is regulating the internet. We've seen our own government attempt to regulate talk radio and suggest putting overseers in newsrooms. We've seen other governments restrict access to social media and force search engines to hide results they don't want their citizens to have access to. I'd rather they not be involved in what I can access on public networks.

But you'd rather Comcast decide which sites you can access? That's kind of like saying i don't want the government to regulate insurance companies to make them offer real coverage cause I want insurance companies to decide if i deserve that cancer treatment...oh, well, never mind.

[Alan]

But you'd rather Comcast decide which sites you can access? That's kind of like saying i don't want the government to regulate insurance companies to make them offer real coverage cause I want insurance companies to decide if i deserve that cancer treatment...oh, well, never mind.

Sure, the only downside to letting Comcast decide is the relative lack of competition in individual markets. We've essentially allowed monopolies to flourish within cable and/or telephone providers. If Comcast were to block your access to HuffPo, you could always find another way to get there through anonymous proxies or other means. If the government blocks it, you probably couldn't. Which do you prefer?

[peggy]

Thanks for the information, bae. You make some good points about owners' rights. But there are a lot of social/cultural questions that emerge in this case. I remember when cable TV first came out. Because you had to pay for the service there were no commercials, as opposed to the free TV where you had commercials you had to sit through, but there were no monthly charges. Well, now there's monthly charges and scads of commercials. Yes, this is free enterprise and we will get choked with our own desires, for the benefit of the people who dangled the carrot to begin with, but this is a parallel to the potential slippery slope of unregulated internet access.

Over the last couple of decades now, the internet has changed our lives--for the better for the most part. I love the internet. Love. Love. Thank you for your contribution to it! My world would be a lot smaller if I didn't have it. (I wouldn't know you guys for one thing) But with this net neutrality issue, I feel that if companies are allowed to tier their bandwidth and make more money, it will inevitably bias the information flow. Convince me I'm wrong. Convince me that the regular person who can barely afford a computer, or who has to go to a library to use one, will get the exact same level of information as the person who can afford all the bells and whistles. We have so much disparity in every aspect of our lives, I'd just hate to see the internet fall to the same curse.

Yes, someone invented the internet. Someone "owns" it (or at least pieces of it). To make money. To build capital. To make profits. I get it. But the internet isn't a Mercedes. It's become part of our way of living, learning, doing business, communicating. This is a a question of at what point does pursuit of profit conflict with the common good? There are a lot of analogies to our current healthcare debate here. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

And it's not just poor people not having access to all of the internet, it's start ups. Little businesses trying to get started. How can they compete with amazon or netflix when Comcast demands lots of money to have their content sent out? This will devastate small business and entrepreneurs who are just starting out and don't have extra money to bribe Comcast or the other providers.

And to Alans hand wringing about those PROVIDERS having to, you know, actually provide service. Well, that IS their service, isn't it? I mean, they charge people money to PROVIDE the gateway into the internet. They don't want to actually spend the money to upgrade, if that's what's needed. We already pay more and get less than just about every other country out there. Allowing these companies to tier 'programming', charge we the users more if we actually want to access all of the internet while demanding extortion from websites who actually want to be seen is obscene.

Once again, setting regulations isn't a 'government takeover' anymore than setting regulations on insurance companies is a take over of health care. I sure hope folks aren't fooled by the fear mongering about 'regulations'. As if regulations are HORRIBLE. Yeah, I hope people keep that in mind next time they buy meat in the store, or eat at a restaurant, or turn on the water tap, or put their kids on a bus, or any one of a thousand regulations that keep them and their loved ones safe, and keep this country as wonderful as it is and not like Somalia.

Net neutrality is keeping the internet as it is now. Koch backed republicans want you to pay more while getting less, or just Koch approved web sites.

[peggy]

Sure, the only downside to letting Comcast decide is the relative lack of competition in individual markets. We've essentially allowed monopolies to flourish within cable and/or telephone providers. If Comcast were to block your access to HuffPo, you could always find another way to get there through anonymous proxies or other means. If the government blocks it, you probably couldn't. Which do you prefer?

The government wouldn't block it. Why would they? They have no interest in blocking my website anymore than they block your ability to buy from any insurance company you want, at whatever price you want to pay. Comcast would block it. And yes, competition would be harmed. I hope all the people out there with their small websites to sell art, or product, or info keep that in mind when they see who wants to destroy their business.

[Alan]

The government wouldn't block it. Why would they?

For our own good? Isn't that why I can't buy a 32oz soft drink in New York?

[bae]

The government wouldn't block it. Why would they? They have no interest in blocking my website anymore than they block your ability to buy from any insurance company you want, at whatever price you want to pay.

Come now. Among other things, I invented and shipped some of the first internet proxy caching servers. Entire countries ran their full traffic through these puppies. There was incredible demand from the governmental customers to add features to let them monitor individual user's access patterns, to restrict access to certain sites/regions, to transparently redirect traffic through sites of their own on the way to the final destination, to alter traffic on-the-fly, and so on. Some of the features China wanted were clearly aimed at identifying and killing dissidents.

When I was developing some of the initial commercial routers, we were under great pressure to provide back-door access so the FBI and other agencies could tap into traffic. This was over 30 years ago. It is routine now. You've probably seen it in the news.

I have the fellow who ran Cisco's security architecture for the last 10 years visit my home regularly - the things that go on now would probably make most of you hide under your beds. I'd tell you more but they'd probably kill you.

No thanks.

[kib]

The thing is ... sigh. We - the world - always seem to wind up with the question of ownership. Who should own this, who should regulate that, who should have the rights and who should pay for the privilege. Yes, the same old same old argument about the commons. Why the bleep couldn't we just for bleeping once consider a model in which something is not owned, hoarded and exploited. Imagine.

[jp1]

For our own good? Isn't that why I can't buy a 32oz soft drink in New York?

Government blocking is not something that's currently, or likely to be in the future, on the table. Sort of like government healthcare death panels. It appears to be an attempt to deflect the argument away from what is actually happening to fear of a theoretical similar thing that the government might theoretically do some day.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Most things seem to be done for my own bad. I think this for my own good is starting to sound like an improvement.

* eh relax, that's humor, but really almost everything is done against the public interest at this point anyway

[iris lilies]

Government blocking is not something that's currently, or likely to be in the future, on the table. Sort of like government healthcare death panels. It appears to be an attempt to deflect the argument away from what is actually happening to fear of a theoretical similar thing that the government might theoretically do some day.

Ah, but there is a "death panel" in existence right now. It's a reality, I read about it recently. It's the board that determines when Medicare thresholds have been exceeded. It's their job to step in and say "no more care for grandma" in specific areas. But to be fair (according to the article I read) the panel hasn't actually had to act since none of the costs have exceeded the defined thresholds. I am scratching my head about "no costs exceeding" business but then, I forget that the gumnt has unlimited money. So perhaps, in the end, you are right, the death panels sits there for show having no real teeth.

I am "pro-death panels" and you will find all my past posts to be consistent with that idea. Unfettered spending on healthcare for all Americans is not something I support.
Bring on the death panels. I can't see how any rational citizen who actually pays any tax would be against that, but I am often wrong.