Can the Internet ever be truly free?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 23, 2009 at 9:00am

The net neutrality issue is not the same thing that is being presented by people like Glen Beck who are trying to make it into an an equivalent to the fairness doctrine. It has nothing to do with the content of the content and everything to do with stopping ISPs from turning the internet into cable TV where the ISP can charge you to access content you really want.

Without network neutrality, large ISPs would simply turn Google into HBO or make it so that Google has to pay the ISP to become accessible to their customers. ISPs would be able to prevent you from using Skype or Vonage instead of their VOIP service.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Ho on October 23, 2009 at 2:47pm

It is UNfortunate that the issue is being politicized.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by matthew w. wilson on November 8, 2009 at 8:48pm

When corporate interests run politics, everything becomes political, Thomas.

Sad reality of our modern age.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on October 26, 2009 at 9:28pm

I don't totally agree, Mike.

Net neutrality would allow larger companies to 'buy' larger pipelines so that they have a distinct advantage in delivering their content. That puts you, me, and other companies who can NOT afford those superhighways at a disadvantage. In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

As well, with the government policing who can obtain licensing, there's the inherent issue of politics controlling bandwidth. That's an incredibly dangerous situation to be in. I think it is fair to politicize the issue now... better now than later when it's abused!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Stallsmith on October 23, 2009 at 9:54am

The govt does not understand the internet very well....so how can it make laws that dramatically effect it. Plus the net is evolving so fast on a daily basis that laws have unintended consequences.

What ever happened to people having choices and deciding who to use as a provider?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Ho on October 23, 2009 at 2:48pm

UNfortunately, there isN'T a large amount of competition, especially in the wired broadband arena where cable v. telco is about it.

In the wireless space, competition is even more of a problem because spectrum is a finite resource.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on October 23, 2009 at 10:09am

Aren't Internet Access providers already doing this by offering different downstream speeds? BrightHouse has a basic 1 MB plans and a 6 MB plan. We all only have so much time in a day to access the internet and download stuff. So if you are constraining download speed aren't you already constraining how much data one can download? All I know is this the US has become a hotbed of innovation for internet products because we don't throttle access. India on the other hand has some of the worst "metered" internet services and despite all the talk of how it a big IT player innovation in web space, internet penetration and infrastructure are way behind.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 24, 2009 at 8:34am

PK, this isn't about connection speeds. It's about allowing ISPs to make the internet work better for some services than others. It's so they can charge Google for faster performance, or limit a competing VOIP solution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tom Marsh on October 24, 2009 at 9:47am

limit a competing VOIP solution.

Double-underline that... This is about Magic-Jack, Vonage, and other smaller competitors who are eating the phone companies' lunches. AT&T thought the Internet would supplement their long-distance phone business, not take its place, so they weren't prepared when competitors (selling Long-distance charge-free phone services) started riding around on their data network.

Same deal with cellular: They saw another huge cash cow--they saw every house with a land-line and cell-phone (or three.) Instead it turned into a business that would eliminate the need for many people to buy land-lines. I know I don't have one.

AT&T is trying to get a piece of Google and Facebook's action because they completely missed the boat on the content game, VoIP to consumers, and whatever comes next. As a company, AT&T's only self-made innovation in a long time has been gouging iPhone customers for an inferior data network. And I mean, this is going back to the days of being on the stock exchange next to AT&B (American Tophat & Buggy-Whip.)

In simplest terms, AT&T and their pals are gambling they can hobble their competitors long-enough to figure out how to survive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Blake J. Facey on October 23, 2009 at 10:32am

This is a tough one, for sure. I don't really know which way to lean on this.

Part of this whole deal has to do with providers. There's nothing stopping providers now from changing their plans now to nickel and dime you for accessing the internet. They already do similar things with cable or with cell phone plans: $0.10 per text message, $1.99 per MB etc. You want P2P, that'll be $10/month? You want Google, $5/month? Don't say it couldn't happen because it could, pretty easily. Would I encourage this be regulated? For sure, and while they're at it, fix the cable and mobile phone industries.

On the other hand, is our government really the best to regulate this? Probably not. It's sort of a gray area letting some senator decide what an appropriate device to connect to the network is, or what constitutes legal use of the network. Sure, there are definitely illegal things going on, but some are moral issues, and the government would likely overstep their reach. Who's to say what they can regulate? Do they have the authority to regulate something on the network that passes from Canada to Mexico through the U.S.? It's not really the same as driving a truck across the U.S. is it? You're sending data over the network.

Oh well, those are just my thoughts on it. I don't have a good solution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 24, 2009 at 8:35am

The issue is that the last mile monopolies have not been broken. Comcast or AT&T deliver broadband. There really is no one else because they use the same wires to your home. And metro WiFi isn't moving very quickly.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Bean on October 23, 2009 at 10:43am

I am certainly for a reduction of government interference in matters our founders never intended. However, this issue could fall squarely within that realm. It's a bit (if not, a lot) like our highway system. Regulating interstate commerce is an original function of the federal government. This is one thing that THE PEOPLE need to own (access), not a private business.

Think of what we could have been advancing in this area if we hadn't been wasting money on bank and auto bailouts.

Having said that, I'm not currently opposed to ISP's figuring out a way to offer premium services.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last