Internet neutrality

[labgnat]

Anyone worried about the whole net neutrality thing that's goin on in congress? i had heard a tiny bit about it a while back. saw some vids on youtube about it tonight that talk a lot about it.
Something about big corporations trying to regulate how the internet is used. What exactly they'd do i dont know, but all the fuss that is being made about it, it doesnt' sound like it could be good. i'm sure there are plenty of folks on here that know a lot more about it than me, how do you feel?

 

[Trevorus]

Problem is, people can just turn the whole internet into an open-source project. I hope that the corps don't get control, because that will suck. At least until the public rebels and reclaims it. You know how powerful pissed off nerds can be?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Net neutrality is basically companies not influeincing other companies.

I.e. if Coke wanted to advertise more online, instead of buying banners that nobody clicks anyway, they could give a bunch of money to Yahoo and say "Hey Yahoo, make is so when people type in "soda" or "Pepsi", they see Coke websites first."

Furthermore, they could pay off ISP's like Comcast or something and say "Hey Comcast. Make it so when someone tries to view Pepsi websites, their internet gets REAL slow, or doesn't even connect to that site."

Basically, it's screwing over the average Joe who just wants to surf the web. Google is against this. Which is totally awesome, because usually big companies are the first to jump on screwing over the average Joe.

 

[bburk]

I.e. if Coke wanted to advertise more online, instead of buying banners that nobody clicks anyway, they could give a bunch of money to Yahoo and say "Hey Yahoo, make is so when people type in "soda" or "Pepsi", they see Coke websites first."

Furthermore, they could pay off ISP's like Comcast or something and say "Hey Comcast. Make it so when someone tries to view Pepsi websites, their internet gets REAL slow, or doesn't even connect to that site."

This isn't true. The current Net Neutrality debate is about allowing networks to set Quality of Service (QoS) priorities for certain types of packets. The idea is that certain packets should be allowed to 'jump the queue' in order to provide better service.

The common examples are:

* Streaming Media - where packets are time-sensitive, it might make sense to allow them priority access to the network.
* Pay for service - Google accounts for a disproportionate amount of packets on an ISPs network. They turn a HUGE profit using that network but don't pay a the ISP a dime. ISPs should be able to define some way to make money off of all that internet commerce that is using their network, kinda like an internet tax.

I'm not taking a stance on this one either way. Just making sure we are all on the same page.

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

[Trevorus]

* Pay for service - Google accounts for a disproportionate amount of packets on an ISPs network. They turn a HUGE profit using that network but don't pay a the ISP a dime. ISPs should be able to define some way to make money off of all that internet commerce that is using their network, kinda like an internet tax.

Isn't it enough I pay 45 bucks a month for my internet? Man, everybody needs more. When the wages go up, the prices of everything goes up. Nothing changes except the numbers...

 

[Poop-Loops]

This isn't true. The current Net Neutrality debate is about allowing networks to set Quality of Service (QoS) priorities for certain types of packets. The idea is that certain packets should be allowed to 'jump the queue' in order to provide better service.

The common examples are:

* Streaming Media - where packets are time-sensitive, it might make sense to allow them priority access to the network.
* Pay for service - Google accounts for a disproportionate amount of packets on an ISPs network. They turn a HUGE profit using that network but don't pay a the ISP a dime. ISPs should be able to define some way to make money off of all that internet commerce that is using their network, kinda like an internet tax.

I'm not taking a stance on this one either way. Just making sure we are all on the same page.

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Dude, right out of your link:

"[These companies] want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all"..."tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data."..."to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video —while slowing down or blocking their competitors"..."to reserve express lanes for their own content and services.[7]

 

[bburk]

Dude, right out of your link:

Poop, That's actually a quote from [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], which is hardly an un-biased source. Please read past the synopsis at the top, It really doesn't dispute what I just said. I just wanted to give people more info. It's wikipedia anyway, if I wanted to make stuff up, I would have just put it in there myself beforehand.

Furthermore, even this is different than the two scenarios that you mention.

The first being basically 'pay for placement' where a company could pay a search engine to improve their rank in a search result. This is actually a criticism of the big search engines and really was a big problem before google and their 'don't be evil' motto. Now, most search engines allow companies to place links in their special 'advertisements' section. like the box in blue at the top

The second scenario I guess could be possible with anti-net-neutrality in place, but I really can't see Coke 'buying off' Comcast to block all of Pepsi's adds to it's users or whatever. What I'm pointing out is that instead, Coke would pay Comcast for 'priority access' where customers viewing their website might get 'faster' access than another (I guess Pepsi would be included, unless they also paid for 'priority access') site.

I just want to make sure everyone understands the common definition. You can argue the implications all you want, but the definition is pretty clear cut.

 

[UnsungZeros]

The second scenario I guess could be possible with anti-net-neutrality in place, but I really can't see Coke 'buying off' Comcast to block all of Pepsi's adds to it's users or whatever. What I'm pointing out is that instead, Coke would pay Comcast for 'priority access' where customers viewing their website might get 'faster' access than another (I guess Pepsi would be included, unless they also paid for 'priority access') site.

Or, Comcast could extort Coke into paying them for priority service, lest the be outdone by Pepsi. Although Coke and Pepsi are kind of bad examples. A more likely scenario would go down as Yahoo paying Comcast to give them priority over other traffic, which inherently downgrades the priority of other traffic. That would force a competitor, say Google, to pay Comcast in order to just stay competitive. So while it would negatively affect large companies, it would also hurt smaller companies that can't afford to pay for "priority access" and average users that will have their traffic inherently downgraded if their not communicating with a site or service that has paid for "priority access."

 

[bburk]

Or, Comcast could extort Coke into paying them for priority service, lest the be outdone by Pepsi. Although Coke and Pepsi are kind of bad examples. A more likely scenario would go down as Yahoo paying Comcast to give them priority over other traffic, which inherently downgrades the priority of other traffic. That would force a competitor, say Google, to pay Comcast in order to just stay competitive. So while it would negatively affect large companies, it would also hurt smaller companies that can't afford to pay for "priority access" and average users that will have their traffic inherently downgraded if their not communicating with a site or service that has paid for "priority access."

Yep, that's more like what I was talking about, but now we are getting into implications... and that's where I step out. In person I have opinions about this particular topic... on the net, no way.

 

[Kosko]

Its another step in trying to turn the Wild Wild West into New York City.

 

[morf]

Unlikely anything like that will happen. Alot of people who actually know they stuff won't have it.