Three Dangers of Losing Net Neutrality That Nobody’s Talking About (work, ISP)

[sargentodiaz]

By Wired Opinion, 01.20.14

The article starts off with this:

Net neutrality is an incredibly important issue, but it’s hard to know what to pay attention to when people throw around jargon like “common carriers” and “reclassification.” It doesn’t help that people who tend to be united in their reaction — everyone from techno-libertarians to VCs – seem divided about the gutting of the FCC’s net neutrality rules this week.

But, it then details the three dangers, which are:

1. No matter how things play out with net neutrality, the outcome is likely to hurt the poor.

2. Whether we want to admit it or not, we continue to give more control over the internet to the government. [This concerns me most as it directly deals with governments being able to censor what we can learn and share]

3. The problem isn’t the ISPs, it’s the FCC.

Read the full piece here and let's discuss it Three Dangers of Losing Net Neutrality That Nobody's Talking About | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by sargentodiaz

3. The problem isn’t the ISPs, it’s the FCC.

You realize the internet since it's inception and as you know it now operates under net neutrality?

The issue here is the term has been been muddled by politicians and people that have no clue what they are talking about. The original definition simply means traffic over a network is going to be treated equal. No matter what site or service you may want to use your ISP isn't going to throw up a roadblock or speed bumps to any particular site or service.

It has nothing to do with censorship and it doesn't have anything to do with giving internet to the poor etc.

[risotto11]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

You realize the internet since it's inception and as you know it now operates under net neutrality?

The issue here is the term has been been muddled by politicians and people that have no clue what they are talking about. The original definition simply means traffic over a network is going to be treated equal. No matter what site or service you may want to use your ISP isn't going to throw up a roadblock or speed bumps to any particular site or service.

It has nothing to do with censorship and it doesn't have anything to do with giving internet to the poor etc.

The polls are showing that "most people" are against any government regulation of the Internet but those are the same "most people" who couldn't tell Ethernet from Internet .

I hear lawyers and lobbyist arguing against net neutrality on the radio and it is apparent that they don't really understand what Internet is or how it operates. Hilarious.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by risotto11

The polls are showing that "most people" are against any government regulation of the Internet...

If you ran a poll asking consumers if they would like the internet to stay the way it is of move to some other business model they are going to pick how it is now overwhelmingly.

The ISP's need to be treated just like the phone companies and other utilities with the exception of price controls. The only time they should be allowed to shape bandwidth from the content providers is for technical reasons as long as it's done neutrally. Shift the cost to the consumer with tiered plans, use X amount of bandwidth pay for X amount of bandwidth.

Neither side will be happy with that but you solve the issue of the ISP leveraging bandwidth for content acsess and they got no complaints becsue they can charge whatever they want.