I am still uncertain of what this means. After reading countless articles, blog posts and opinions, I don’t know if I am for net neutrality, or against it. If someone can help me define what side of this fence I fall on, please do so because I really, really want to know.
Here is my stance on the Internet, and its future.
The Internet has become a commercial event. I know, originally it was the land of geeks and nerds. I know it was developed by the US Government using tax payer dollars. I know that it was enhanced and expanded by the universities using (in many cases) US tax payer dollars.
But all of this was (in Internet terms) eons ago. Since the Interenet was released to the general public, and more specifically, to commericial interests, it has grown and blossomed. Sure, in some cases it shows off the worst humanity has to offer, but in most cases, it shows off the best. The innovations and leaps forward in technology of the last 15 years or so can be – at least indirectly – attributed to the Internet.
As I understand this issue there are two sides. One side wants the government to create and enforce laws that will gaurantee equal access to everyone on the Internet, at equal speeds. The other side is in favor of creating a sort of SuperNet, or Internet 2. Something akin to an Uber-Information Superhighway. This is more of a “pay to play” model whereby companies, organizations and individuals can pay money to the service providers (i.e. your cable or phone company, or AOL, NetZero and countless others) to have their content delivered with a higher priority. Kind of like priority mail.
Now, what I have garnered through my readings is that the biggest complaint people make against this type of tier delivery is that the ISPs are making money on both ends. They are charging the individual for access to the Internet, and they want to charge content providers for access to their networks. I don’t see anything wrong with this if the market will support it.
Now, let’s say CBS wants to stream a television show…like Jericho. CBS puts the show out there for everyone’s pleasure. Now AT&T comes along and tells CBS “hey, you have this TV show available, and for just $$$ a day, we will give that show preferred priority on our backbone.” CBS has the option to pay AT&T to get the priority access, or it can not pay AT&T and let the TV show stream along much as it does today. It will be up to CBS to make that decision. What does it cost you and me? Nothing.
There are those that cry “They’ll put the little guy on a slow pipe if they don’t pay.” But this is erroneous I believe. I have a deal with AT&T. For X amount of dollars per month that I pay them, they will devliver internet content at X amount of speed. If that speed were to change, I would find a new provider.
The thing is, if the market will allow the ISPs to make as much money as they can, and the government shouldn’t be involved. If the market will allow for a 2nd bandwidth tier that will deliver content faster, and the content provider is willing and able to pay for it, why not? What will it hurt me, or you, the end consumer? It won’t. We have choices on who are providers are. If we do not like the service we are getting from AT&T, then we can go with Earthlink, or cable, or any number of other service providers.
In the end, my position is one in favor of industry, in favor of capitalism, in favor of – doggon it – just keep the blasted government off everyone’s backs. Let the ISPs make a buck or two without regulating everything into nothing. If the ISPs require more money to run their backbone, and they are not allowed to charge content providers, then who do you think is going to pay for that?
So, taking all of this into mind, can someone please tell me which side of “Net Neutrality” I fall on? I just can’t figure out if I’m ‘fer it or agin it’.
Oh, and thanks for letting me rant a bit.
Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality, Government intervention, Technology
Stumble it!
Crescent of Betrayal Blogroll
Kansas Bloggers
June 13th, 2007 
85 Comment from
08:51 
Write a comment
About
You favor net neutrality. You don’t want your ISP to be able to decide you can’t use Google, or that you have to pay extra to view a video on YouTube.
The issue isn’t whether ISP’s and telcos can build Internet 2 (it already exists, and they experimented with the sorts of tiering that the telcos want to do, and rejected it as technologically impractical and more expensive than just boosting capacity). The issue isn’t whether they can charge you for more speed or capacity (they can already do that). Net neutrality is the status quo.
The issue is whether they should be allowed to treat traffic from certain networks differently than others. Google buys a certain amount of bandwidth at a certain maximum speed from their ISP. That ISP currently sends that traffic out to the network, where each packet is treated the same as traffic from Yahoo, Ask.com, Microsoft, or the company you are starting in your basement. That is what network neutrality means.
A non-neutral network would allow the telco that receives the data from Google’s ISP to slow down Google’s packets depending on how much Google pays them (in addition to their ISP). Yahoo, which partners with SBC, could guarantee that your basement company would never load faster to SBC customers than their services, no matter how much bandwidth and speed a customer has purchased.
Network neutrality is why you are able to connect any company’s telephone or answering machine or modem to your home phone line. The lack of net neutrality is why you can’t connect the iPhone to whichever cell carrier you like. The internet isn’t broken. Taking away net neutrality (which has been the status quo since the internet began), doesn’t solve any problem that you, the consumer, face. It just makes it easier for the telcos to screw you, the consumer.