I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality-and for that reason I continue to view the Verizon-Google deal as a bad thing for all of the rest of us. Spike found a good primer that explains why:
[Via: Online MBA Programs]
A (formerly) Far East located web site devoted to The Resistance, discussion of all things political, travel, women, golf, women,adventure, and did I mention women?
So somebody builds infrastructure like a toll road or a toll bridge and you find that free grazing trumps their rights?
If the governments created it I would see your point. Since they didn’t, you’re insane.
Is the internet a potential case of the tragedy of the commons?
It would have been had the tragedy proved true. Yet another hockey stick of peer reviewed and approved fallacy and lies.
Curtis,
The fact that you need to defend the right to ISP’s to fuck over their customers-is a interesting. F*CK the ISP’s. They have no right to impose on guys like me who like to down load large files with large graphic content. These worthless bastards need to be kicked in the teeth.
P.S.-the government did create the Internet. Ever heard of ARPA?
DARPA
Let us take any major suspension bridge you are familiar with shall we.
Some troll built the piers and towers and some troll built the damned suspension bridge. got it? They not only have a right of return on investment they get to restrict access by charging a toll.
You did not build it
You did not design it
You did not invest in it
You are a user.
Live with it.
But this more than just a bridge-the internet has become the lifeblood of commerce and also a whole lot of other things. The attempt by Google and Verizon is nothing short of trying to corner the market-and in the process deny users of equal access to content and the flow of info. That is not right.
And your bridge example is flawed- because everyone pays the same toll to cross the bridge. Verizon wants to screw you over because you need a wider lane and a faster speed across the bridge.
what can i say skippy. LOOK AT THE DAMNED FEE SCHEDULES FOR TOLL BRIDGES! BY AXLE! Haul more stuff pay more.
You made my point brilliantly.
The analogy is something closer to this: yes, the toll bridge demands money, but at least they do not care about my origin or destination. The fear is that the telcos will preferentially allocate bandwidth to affiliated content providers.
Net non-neutrality can be likened to toll bridges in Soviet Russia, though. . .
And somehow you’ve sussed out your right to forbid them to deal preferentially with paying clients? How is that different from boarding an aircraft these days? Premier/Gold Execs board first, First Class next, the coach guys when it is convenient.
Everywhere you pay for the service level you expect and telling the folks that laid in the infrastructure to ‘just suck it up and give more’ is unreasonable.
Seriously, net neutrality is stupid in the face of stupid. Only a moron would favor it.
oooooohhhh, i can’t get my streaming video because my building is wired with cat 5 and not fiber optic, my isp must rewire my condo post haste…
oooooohhhhhh, I only have dial up modem service so my isp must upgrade my connectivity……
silly really.
The Economist is going to prove you wrong in this weeks edition.
Still waiting.
Here.
What about the risk that operators will fragment the internet by erecting new road-blocks or toll booths? In theory, competition between providers of internet access should prevent this from happening. Any broadband provider that tries to block particular sites or services, for example, will quickly lose customers to rival firms—provided there are plenty of them.
Why net neutrality is a distraction
But that is not the case in America. Its vitriolic net-neutrality debate is a reflection of the lack of competition in broadband access. The best solution would be to require telecoms operators to open their high-speed networks to rivals on a wholesale basis, as is the case almost everywhere in the industrialised world. America’s big network operators have long argued that being forced to share their networks would undermine their incentives to invest in new infrastructure, and thus hamper the roll-out of broadband. But that has not happened in other countries that have mandated such “open access”, and enjoy faster and cheaper broadband than America. Net neutrality is difficult to define and enforce, and efforts to do so merely address the symptom (concern about discrimination) rather than the underlying cause (lack of competition). Rivalry between access providers offers the best protection against the erection of new barriers to the flow of information online.
This newspaper has always championed free trade, open markets and vigorous competition in the physical world. The same principles should be applied on the internet as well.