Net Neutrality

[dbigtex56]

This post raises a troubling question.

My knowledge is primitive; my belief is that, the Internet is currently open to whomever wants to use it, with no preference given to any party. Comcast, AT&T or AOL has the same access and priorities as anyone else. It appears to me that larger companies expect that they should be given greater priorities. Conveniently, that puts the competition at a disadvantage. The FCC is stepping in. IMHO that seems like a good thing.

Am I mistaken? And is there any rational reason that neutrality shouldn't be maintained - and enforced?

(PS: please don't point out that I'm not well informed on this topic. That's been established. I welcome thoughtful responses.)

[barracuda]

That's my understanding of net neutrality. It ensures that sites like HAIF don't take a backseat to Google or AOL, who can afford to pay ISPs for special, faster access. The most worrisome part is that without net neutrality, your ISP could block competing sites (for example, block Google Maps because they have a partnership with Microsoft Bing). Going forward without net neutrality would probably hurt small startup web sites the most, as they wouldn't have the resources to pay every single ISP for privileged access, effectively shutting down a lot of innovation and self-expression on the web.

[brian0123]

As a web and software developer, take it from me when I say net neutrality is one of the most important things that needs to be maintained. It's a topic a lot of people have no clue about, but computer geeks like me know that it is one of the most important battles going on for the freedom of the internet. Without maintaining a free and open internet, large companies will in essence be able to kill any start up that comes along. In other words, say I created the next Facebook that completely tears FB a new one like FB did to MySpace... well without net neutrality, FB would be able to pay for premium bandwidth out of their huge $$$ chest that I, a lonely start up, would not have access to. When users would come to my site, it would run slower because my competitor is paying for premium bandwidth, and thus users would think my site is "slow" and they'll stick with the faster option. Without net neutrality, there would be no competition anymore. Startups like Google will never again happen. Instead, the big boys will see it's competition, build their own variation, and then pay for premium delivery of their data and kill any form of new competition.

Also, the arguments that conservatives and large corporations make about seeing the need to pay more for video data delivery because it fills the networks, etc. is BS. We already pay for it! Right now, I have a startup company where I pay $$$ for every byte downloaded from my server (just like The HAIF does) and what goes out to the internet. The more users that request our data, we pay for more bandwidth. You, as a consumer, pay $$$ for speed (and now amount) of data you download. Without net neutrality, large companies want to be able to pay extra money (think of it as a bribe) that will tell Verizon/Comcast/etc to deliver their content to you faster than my site. So you even though you, the consumer, are paying for a fast speed to the internet... large companies want to slow your access down to certain sites.

[Materene]

As a web and software developer, take it from me when I say net neutrality is one of the most important things that needs to be maintained. It's a topic a lot of people have no clue about, but computer geeks like me know that it is one of the most important battles going on for the freedom of the internet. Without maintaining a free and open internet, large companies will in essence be able to kill any start up that comes along. In other words, say I created the next Facebook that completely tears FB a new one like FB did to MySpace... well without net neutrality, FB would be able to pay for premium bandwidth out of their huge $$$ chest that I, a lonely start up, would not have access to. When users would come to my site, it would run slower because my competitor is paying for premium bandwidth, and thus users would think my site is "slow" and they'll stick with the faster option. Without net neutrality, there would be no competition anymore. Startups like Google will never again happen. Instead, the big boys will see it's competition, build their own variation, and then pay for premium delivery of their data and kill any form of new competition.

Also, the arguments that conservatives and large corporations make about seeing the need to pay more for video data delivery because it fills the networks, etc. is BS. We already pay for it! Right now, I have a startup company where I pay $$$ for every byte downloaded from my server (just like The HAIF does) and what goes out to the internet. The more users that request our data, we pay for more bandwidth. You, as a consumer, pay $$$ for speed (and now amount) of data you download. Without net neutrality, large companies want to be able to pay extra money (think of it as a bribe) that will tell Verizon/Comcast/etc to deliver their content to you faster than my site. So you even though you, the consumer, are paying for a fast speed to the internet... large companies want to slow your access down to certain sites.

There is no doubt problems exist with respect to commercial activities within the internet, I look at it much differently more from a simple users perspective and my only interest is these low life politicians stay out of my business and do not have an inside to what I do who I speak to and what I say. This is exactly why they have chosen to start a controversy and say there is a problem to begin with, so they may slime their way into our everyday lives and have a conduit to silence people they don't like or don't support their silliness. People really need to take a very long look at what they have tried to do and understand the backroom activities of just a few individuals with no regulatory authority what so ever. You see in this bill or law they passed were in between the lines sections that were going to force all providers to keep all your traffic on a file that could be used in a court of law, does that open any ears out there?? Yes this was one of their answers saying that if they could do this then they could use these records to prove the guilt of persons un named in a court of law. In other words these few people have decided they now have the authority to keep records on every individual's internet usage and use it against them if they decided they don't like what you read, say, or where you visit. These people that have attempted to do this with faking a crisis are without a doubt the worst element of our society. How did it come to pass with such a small group of people that they were given permission to circumvent privacy laws by attempting to do something so silly. I think it just shows how corrupt this white house is and just another example of using false information to change this country. If it is indeed an issue of commerce and competition then there are already the conduits to file a lawsuit or complaint against an entity or individual. A large scam or unlawful scheme was just averted when the congress dropped the hammer down, I'm not choosing political sides when I say this because the end result if this had been allowed to happen could be absolutely disastrous to each and every one of us. Never ever give up your right to privacy and freedom of speech when it has been hidden in a bill or law that wasn't even presented before the public. You can only guess how much this has really pissed off a lot of us veterans and you can be sure we are watching these people. So the issue is far more reaching than just Net Neutrality, the name was catchy and offered a foot in the door to do some serious harm to a lot of good people. Just like everything they have tried recently they FAILED! Watch them closely

[samagon]

Agree with what Brian0123 says, but it's worse than that.

cause if that's all it was, it would be no different than real life.

I want to start a coffee shop, I can't afford to open on the corner of westheimer and post oak, I can afford to open in a strip center on cook road. it's not 'fair' that starbucks can have a high traffic location, but I can't. if that were all it was, it would be easy to say, well life ain't fair, I want to have a better storefront, I have to get deeper pockets.

where net neutrality gets really bad is when the content providers get involved, if I buy access from AT&T they decide they don't like FB, but they are going to make their own FB, so they market "AT&T book!!" but don't tell you they block FB, or you can pay a premium to AT&T so you can access the real FB, and any startups that are like FB, they will suffer the same fate. Or, if AT&T inks a deal with FB, they say you get access to only FB, no MySpace, no linkedin, nothing else. this will lower your monthly bill (good for consumer) but you also don't get to access the full internet.

they can ink deals with google, so you only get access to the google search engine, or google maps only, no mapquest, or no bing. maybe no netflix streaming, or amazon, no itunes, whatever.

that is the really scary part of removing net neutrality.

[brian0123]

There is no doubt problems exist with respect to commercial activities within the internet, I look at it much differently more from a simple users perspective and my only interest is these low life politicians stay out of my business and do not have an inside to what I do who I speak to and what I say. This is exactly why they have chosen to start a controversy and say there is a problem to begin with, so they may slime their way into our everyday lives and have a conduit to silence people they don't like or don't support their silliness. People really need to take a very long look at what they have tried to do and understand the backroom activities of just a few individuals with no regulatory authority what so ever. You see in this bill or law they passed were in between the lines sections that were going to force all providers to keep all your traffic on a file that could be used in a court of law, does that open any ears out there?? Yes this was one of their answers saying that if they could do this then they could use these records to prove the guilt of persons un named in a court of law. In other words these few people have decided they now have the authority to keep records on every individual's internet usage and use it against them if they decided they don't like what you read, say, or where you visit. These people that have attempted to do this with faking a crisis are without a doubt the worst element of our society. How did it come to pass with such a small group of people that they were given permission to circumvent privacy laws by attempting to do something so silly. I think it just shows how corrupt this white house is and just another example of using false information to change this country. If it is indeed an issue of commerce and competition then there are already the conduits to file a lawsuit or complaint against an entity or individual. A large scam or unlawful scheme was just averted when the congress dropped the hammer down, I'm not choosing political sides when I say this because the end result if this had been allowed to happen could be absolutely disastrous to each and every one of us. Never ever give up your right to privacy and freedom of speech when it has been hidden in a bill or law that wasn't even presented before the public. You can only guess how much this has really pissed off a lot of us veterans and you can be sure we are watching these people. So the issue is far more reaching than just Net Neutrality, the name was catchy and offered a foot in the door to do some serious harm to a lot of good people. Just like everything they have tried recently they FAILED! Watch them closely

Your rant makes no sense. The government and law enforcement can already use your computer and the internet sites you visit against you in a court of law. How do you think they go after child porn cases and terrorism cases? The Patriot Act is what harmed your personal privacy rights... so get mad at that. As far as net neutrality goes, it's a commercial issue and essentially trying to stifle capitalism and the free market. While it's mainly conservatives leading the charge against this... there are also guilty Democrats like Houston's own Gene Greene who is a pathetic front man for the industry as well.

[Materene]

Your rant makes no sense. The government and law enforcement can already use your computer and the internet sites you visit against you in a court of law. How do you think they go after child porn cases and terrorism cases? The Patriot Act is what harmed your personal privacy rights... so get mad at that. As far as net neutrality goes, it's a commercial issue and essentially trying to stifle capitalism and the free market. While it's mainly conservatives leading the charge against this... there are also guilty Democrats like Houston's own Gene Greene who is a pathetic front man for the industry as well.

You know little about what you talk about, before you start telling me I rant take the time to clean up your own act. If I ever decide to rant you'll be the first to know. IP providers do not maintain complete records of all your traffic, they don't have the resources to do it. People like you are what I dislike most, if you have an issue or disagreement with another, you attack and in your case you call my opinion a rant. For your information I am neither Republican or Democrat, the attempt was wrong and it was the right thing to do by stomping down a snake. It's really all very simple follow our laws and constitution, if you have a problem with that then you need to move somewhere where you can join a revolution. You really need to do some research and find out what goes on behind the scenes, providers have to dump information from there servers and this bill or law would have forced them to keep everything indefinitely. The real reason is for this bunch of losers to have an inside on your personal information, if you can't see that then you are already a lost cause and I won't waste any more time with answering your post. This is not about the industry, too bad you can't distinguish that. My final word will be at the voting booth, my brotherly love for a fellow Houstonian say's have a nice day.

[brian0123]

You know little about what you talk about, before you start telling me I rant take the time to clean up your own act. If I ever decide to rant you'll be the first to know. IP providers do not maintain complete records of all your traffic, they don't have the resources to do it. People like you are what I dislike most, if you have an issue or disagreement with another, you attack and in your case you call my opinion a rant. For your information I am neither Republican or Democrat, the attempt was wrong and it was the right thing to do by stomping down a snake. It's really all very simple follow our laws and constitution, if you have a problem with that then you need to move somewhere where you can join a revolution. You really need to do some research and find out what goes on behind the scenes, providers have to dump information from there servers and this bill or law would have forced them to keep everything indefinitely. The real reason is for this bunch of losers to have an inside on your personal information, if you can't see that then you are already a lost cause and I won't waste any more time with answering your post. This is not about the industry, too bad you can't distinguish that. My final word will be at the voting booth, my brotherly love for a fellow Houstonian say's have a nice day.

I get paid a lot of $$$ to deal with the logs and information that you are talking about on a daily basis. I'm a professional in this field and earn my living from it. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I get really upset about this issue because I know it intimately. It's probably how a doctor feels when he knows what's wrong with a patient, but the patient insists the doctor is wrong because they read something online and came to their own conclusions. Trust me, an ISP can glean any information about you and log whatever they want. Even without an ISP, your computer holds any piece of information that you have ever done on it... and it can be retrieved as well. If you are worried about your data, you should be screaming for MORE government oversight and heavier regulation... but that is besides the point.

You are forgetting that net neutrality has existed since the beginning of the internet. If you like it the way it is now, then you should support maintaining a free and open internet. If you would like a better understanding of the issues, I suggest reading over the following link. They lay it out in a manner so non geeks like me can understand it... http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions

[Materene]

I get paid a lot of $$$ to deal with the logs and information that you are talking about on a daily basis. I'm a professional in this field and earn my living from it. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I get really upset about this issue because I know it intimately. It's probably how a doctor feels when he knows what's wrong with a patient, but the patient insists the doctor is wrong because they read something online and came to their own conclusions. Trust me, an ISP can glean any information about you and log whatever they want. Even without an ISP, your computer holds any piece of information that you have ever done on it... and it can be retrieved as well. If you are worried about your data, you should be screaming for MORE government oversight and heavier regulation... but that is besides the point.

You are forgetting that net neutrality has existed since the beginning of the internet. If you like it the way it is now, then you should support maintaining a free and open internet. If you would like a better understanding of the issues, I suggest reading over the following link. They lay it out in a manner so non geeks like me can understand it... http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions

We all already know what an ISP can do and can't do, if they're gathering data on you without a court order or the normal daily course of business it's called privacy invasion. These people that wrote this law specifically wanted to keep information on everyone indefinitely and the sole purpose was stated so that they could use information in a lawsuit, it had nothing to do with a court order by a judge that was watching a predator or a child porn ring or otherwise, the laws already exist to do these things. Once again it was done to silence people like you and I by some twit who was offended by what you or I said. I don't think you still see the broader picture here, you seem to be locked in on the commerce aspect of it and I could care less about that, other than being forced to pay for bandwidth , which by the way I already do with an office connection. It would be terrible to allow companies to start charging per gig downloading, it would kill the internet. AT&T is already scalping everyone charging those outrageous fees for their online text, I'm sure they aren't the only one doing it. The last thing I want is government, they can send 2/3rds of it home tomorrow and we would all be much better off. If a new law is needed to oversee the internet then do it in the proper arena and not with a small group of people trying to promote an agenda.

[brian0123]

We all already know what an ISP can do and can't do, if they're gathering data on you without a court order or the normal daily course of business it's called privacy invasion. These people that wrote this law specifically wanted to keep information on everyone indefinitely and the sole purpose was stated so that they could use information in a lawsuit, it had nothing to do with a court order by a judge that was watching a predator or a child porn ring or otherwise, the laws already exist to do these things. Once again it was done to silence people like you and I by some twit who was offended by what you or I said. I don't think you still see the broader picture here, you seem to be locked in on the commerce aspect of it and I could care less about that, other than being forced to pay for bandwidth , which by the way I already do with an office connection. It would be terrible to allow companies to start charging per gig downloading, it would kill the internet. AT&T is already scalping everyone charging those outrageous fees for their online text, I'm sure they aren't the only one doing it. The last thing I want is government, they can send 2/3rds of it home tomorrow and we would all be much better off. If a new law is needed to oversee the internet then do it in the proper arena and not with a small group of people trying to promote an agenda.

I'm not sure what else I can tell you without wasting my breath. It sounds like you don't like government, so you are critical of any action they might take... thus they are evil no matter what. If that is going to be your logic, then trying to explain a subject as complex as this will really end up being blockaded by the mental wall you have built about government being bad. Go ahead and keep fighting against your best interests, ignore experts like me (and the link I referenced), and when the internet changes one day due to a lack of competition... you can blame the bad government for not doing anything to stop it.

[Materene]

I'm not sure what else I can tell you without wasting my breath. It sounds like you don't like government, so you are critical of any action they might take... thus they are evil no matter what. If that is going to be your logic, then trying to explain a subject as complex as this will really end up being blockaded by the mental wall you have built about government being bad. Go ahead and keep fighting against your best interests, ignore experts like me (and the link I referenced), and when the internet changes one day due to a lack of competition... you can blame the bad government for not doing anything to stop it.

Sorry Brian, you haven't been keeping up with current affairs, for the past 50 years. We have so many thieves and law breakers in government they decided to make a career of it. If we all look deep enough we can find a little humor even in a bad situation, myself I like to make silly videos, so here have a laugh.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/sn00ze/videos/24/

[barracuda]

I'm not sure what else I can tell you without wasting my breath. It sounds like you don't like government, so you are critical of any action they might take... thus they are evil no matter what. If that is going to be your logic, then trying to explain a subject as complex as this will really end up being blockaded by the mental wall you have built about government being bad. Go ahead and keep fighting against your best interests, ignore experts like me (and the link I referenced), and when the internet changes one day due to a lack of competition... you can blame the bad government for not doing anything to stop it.

Your explanation was very clear and helpful. The important thing is to get the word out to folks who are unaware of the issue, but willing to listen and inform themselves.