Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

[Upchurch]

I'm against it. I think it's a rule that, every time my ISP serves up a web site, it must also force me to visit a site with the opposite POV.

The internet is neutral? Then how come all I ever read on it is someone's opinion about something?

Seriously, are you guys pulling my leg?

Network neutrality has nothing to do with the neutrality of the opinions expressed. It has to do with the ISP's not artificially restricting access or transfer speeds based on the type of data being transfered.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes. I pay the same amount every month, whether I use 100MB or 100TB.

How socialist is that!? I'm glad I don't have to choose such a deal.

However, I assume that the pricing model is not the result of regulation?

 

[Francesca R]

Network neutrality has nothing to do with the neutrality of the opinions expressed. It has to do with the ISP's not artificially restricting access or transfer speeds based on the type of data being transfered.

As commonly understood yes. But in reality there are a bunch of things that the internet could be neutral about, yet not possibly all at the same time. Content tiering is just one of those, and to be neutral on it makes things non-neutral in other ways.

 

[Upchurch]

As commonly understood yes. But in reality there are a bunch of things that the internet could be neutral about, yet not possibly all at the same time.

I question whether or not that it is "commonly understood" as evidenced by this thread.

Regardless, Network Neutrality legislation is exclusively about content tiering. It has nothing to do with balancing the amount of political opinion.

 

[Francesca R]

I think members are indeed pulling your leg.

But there are decent arguments against regulation for content tiering as well as for.

 

[Alareth]

Glenn Beck told me Net Neutrality was designed to censor conservative views and opinions on the internet.

I have no reason to believe he would lie about it.

 

[Upchurch]

I think members are indeed pulling your leg.

I hope so.

But there are decent arguments against regulation for content tiering as well as for.

What are the decent arguments against regulation for content tiering (with the understanding that the regulation would prevent content tiering)?

 

[Alan]

I hope so.


What are the decent arguments against regulation for content tiering (with the understanding that the regulation would prevent content tiering)?

Richer ISPs?

 

[Drachasor]

Not a real good comparison. 90% of the population of Canada is concentrated within 100 miles of the US border, it's not like they're anywhere close to evenly distributed throughout Canada.

And the population is much smaller than the US. Like the US the population density isn't like that in Europe.

Really, I find it rather bizarre that people are so reluctant to look at US broadband policy and see the glaring problems in it. Canada is in fact a great example of how a more sensible policy gives better results, but then moving to a more US-like system makes things worse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Richer ISPs? mega media corporations that own substantial internet infrastructure as well as being large content providers

ftfy.

 

[Alan]

That too, I guess!

 

[Francesca R]

What are the decent arguments against regulation for content tiering (with the understanding that the regulation would prevent content tiering)?

Have you taken a position on net neutrality without informing yourself of the arguments against it?

If so, is that ideologial blindness (say, simply believing other net neutrality proponents when they tell you that every good argument is in favour of it), or ignorance?

 

[Chaos]

Have you taken a position on net neutrality without informing yourself of the arguments against it?

If so, is that ideologial blindness (say, simply believing other net neutrality proponents when they tell you that every good argument is in favour of it), or ignorance?

Given Upchurch´s previous statements on net neutrality, in this thread and others, I would venture a guess that he has informed himself about net neutrality, including any arguments fielded against it, and after careful consideration come to the conclusion that those arguments do not hold water.

If you think there are persuasive arguments against net neutrality, it would only be in your interest to present them, rather than attacking the person of those arguing in favor of net neutrality.

 

[Francesca R]

See sections 3 and 4, pages 11 and 24. This is from the UK telecom regulator, June 2010.

(It appears as of now that the UK government is not going to legislate net neutrality enforcement, preferring transparency and action against monopolistic provision. Of course they might screw up the latter two as governments have been generally too kind to telecoms in both areas)

 

[Upchurch]

Have you taken a position on net neutrality without informing yourself of the arguments against it?

If so, is that ideologial blindness (say, simply believing other net neutrality proponents when they tell you that every good argument is in favour of it), or ignorance?

The closest there is to a legitimate argument against it, if you don't know any better, is that there is technological limitations to the amount of data that can be passed at any one time. The problem with that argument is (1) it is a temporary limitation as technology improves and (2) it is really just an excuse for the ISP's to defer the cost of improving their infrastructure until a later date. I'm sorry, but continuing to provide crappy service is not a good excuse for jacking up prices due to artificial scarcity.

So, tell me. What decent arguments are there against regulation for content tiering.

 

[drkitten]

Have you taken a position on net neutrality without informing yourself of the arguments against it?

In approximately the same way I've taken a position on the roundness of the Earth or the theory of evolution,..... yes I have. The arguments I've seen against net neutrality fail to convince, to the point where the next "decent argument" against Net Neutrality I see will be the first.

If so, is that ideologial blindness (say, simply believing other net neutrality proponents when they tell you that every good argument is in favour of it), or ignorance?

I suppose it's technically ignorance, then. Perhaps you would be kind enough to rectify that ignorance by providing a sensible -- excuse me, "decent" -- argument against Net Neutrality?

 

[drkitten]

See sections 3 and 4, pages 11 and 24. This is from the UK telecom regulator, June 2010.

Well, from section 3.4, "network operators and ISPs are also considering whether traffic management techniques could play a role as a complement or substitute to network investment." I see no reason why I should be charged MORE money to permit network advisors to spend less. Business costs what it costs; if they want to provide better service, they can (and do) charge me for that in my contract. (I just upgraded from dialup to fiber, for example.) i don't consider this a decent argument.

Section 3.8 points out that "New opportunities are not enough to offset the decline in traditional fixed and mobile telephony revenues." Not relevant; business models can and should change. if you can't change to meet the new demands of the market, close up shop. Again, this isn't a valid argument.

Section 3.10 points out that wireless networks are overloaded. In the United States, this is being addressed by making more of the spectrum available and by (gasp) building more towers and making cells smaller --- in other words, by infrastructural investments; the companies that are investing in better infrastructure (e.g. Sprint and Verizon with their new 4G networks) are gaining market share. This is how competition is _supposed_ to work.

Section 4.12 states that "Consumers do not all have the same tastes and preferences. Some may be willing to pay to minimise the risk of receiving a low quality service, for instance keen internet gamers. If traffic management was not possible at all, ISPs could not meet the demand of these quality-sensitive consumers." This is, not to put too fine a point on it, untrue. My own personal experience shows otherwise -- as I said, I just upgraded from dialup to fiber. I can buy as big a data pipe as I can pay for; if one ISP can't do it for me, I can simply find another who will.

Even in the wireless world, this is possible; if Verizon chooses to buy another block of the spectrum and reserve it for "premium" cell customers who are willing to pay $1000/mo for cell phone service, they will be able to offer much better service because they'll have fewer customers. This, of course, is hardly new -- radios have been buying multiple licenses for different groups of customers for decades.

I'm not going to continue dissecting this document paragraph by paragraph; let me just say that my cursory reading of it still leaves me with no "decent arguments" against Net Neutrality. If your ISP doesn't have enough bandwidth for your purpose, change ISPs to one that invests properly in infrastructure.

 

[Upchurch]

This is not a partisan issue. A lack of network neutrality stifles innovation and kills free market. Conservatives should be all for insuring network neutrality and those who know what it really means are.

Only those with, as you say, ideological blindness view it as "all regulation is bad" and therefore network neutrality must be bad.

 

[Drachasor]

This is not a partisan issue. A lack of network neutrality stifles innovation and kills free market. Conservatives should be all for insuring network neutrality and those who know what it really means are.

Only those with, as you say, ideological blindness view it as "all regulation is bad" and therefore network neutrality must be bad.

Eh, when was the last time conservatives in the U.S.A. were about fostering the free market when it required laws as opposed to bending over backwards to do what big business wants?

 

[Upchurch]

Eh, when was the last time conservatives in the U.S.A. were about fostering the free market when it required laws as opposed to bending over backwards to do what big business wants?

In this case, they would be bending over forwards for a tiny slice of big business and taking the rest of us and big business with them for no gain at all.