Net Neutrality

[Duncan Edwards]

Funded by taxes?! ...it.

Not that I think it’s necessarily the right way to do things but if the net were run as a public utility it would be nominally self funded like the electric company is in most places. To have it funded totally out of the public purse would be a disaster.

[Nessie]

Funded by taxes?! ...it.

Not that I think it’s necessarily the right way to do things but if the net were run as a public utility it would be nominally self funded like the electric company is in most places. To have it funded totally out of the public purse would be a disaster.

Well, I'm okay with self-funded too, as long as they keep it simple and basic so it can be easily self-funded. I guess I don't much care if there are commercial options but I'm not likely to choose them. Because we can't just shut it down and walk away, the Net is a utility, and a utility can't be run with the bottom line as its only priority.

There are plenty of ways it could be done. Maybe a co-op (owned by the workers and maybe customers too)? A nonprofit? Anything, really, as long as nearly everyone can have it.

By the way, I don't get the paranoia about the government. Government never cared about me or anything I've done or said online, nor do they care about any model I hired, shoot I attended, or video I shot. But during the time I worked with video, I worked for no fewer than three private employers who felt entitled to extreme snooping rights.

Two of them certainly would have fired me if they'd have known.

Unwanted masters are unwanted masters no matter where they come from.

Nessie

[Fred588]

Funded by taxes?! ...it.

Not that I think it’s necessarily the right way to do things but if the net were run as a public utility it would be nominally self funded like the electric company is in most places. To have it funded totally out of the public purse would be a disaster.

I think a careful review of the "net neutrality" issue will reveal that the method of funding is a minor side-issue (emphasis on "side"). Its not about how much an ISP charges, bandwidth, or data caps. If an ISP wants to offer a service with dial-up speed or with a data cap so low that viewing video is impossible they are free to do so (with the possible exception of when they are the sole available provider for a location). The issue of neutrality arises when a provider say "you can use the service you purchased for this, but not for that."

[Mr Mudster]

Its not about how much an ISP charges, bandwidth, or data caps. If an ISP wants to offer a service with dial-up speed or with a data cap so low that viewing video is impossible they are free to do so (with the possible exception of when they are the sole available provider for a location). The issue of neutrality arises when a provider say "you can use the service you purchased for this, but not for that."

However, you have to ask yourself whether you are "purchasing" service or "renting" a service. I don't believe we actually purchase service from ISP's. In fact, if you look at the contract you signed to get the service, it usually shows that you are leasing the service for a predetermined period of time, after which time you must either renew it or continue on a month-to-month basis. There is no actual purchase involved, except maybe for equipment to connect to their service.

Putting it into a different perspective... If I were to purchase a house I could do whatever I wanted to do with that house. And if I wanted to trash it by hosting mud parties in the living room, then that is my right! However, if I am renting that house I have a responsibility to the landlord to maintain it properly. Even if I wanted to improve the property by putting an addition onto it, I would have to have their permission.

What "Net Neutrality" did was say to the landlord; "If your tenant wants to knock down a wall to make more room, then you must let them! You cannot interfere with their rights!" The removal of the law now puts the control of the ISP back into the hands of the owners.

[Fred588]

Its not about how much an ISP charges, bandwidth, or data caps. If an ISP wants to offer a service with dial-up speed or with a data cap so low that viewing video is impossible they are free to do so (with the possible exception of when they are the sole available provider for a location). The issue of neutrality arises when a provider say "you can use the service you purchased for this, but not for that."

However, you have to ask yourself whether you are "purchasing" service or "renting" a service. I don't believe we actually purchase service from ISP's. In fact, if you look at the contract you signed to get the service, it usually shows that you are leasing the service for a predetermined period of time, after which time you must either renew it or continue on a month-to-month basis. There is no actual purchase involved, except maybe for equipment to connect to their service.

Putting it into a different perspective... If I were to purchase a house I could do whatever I wanted to do with that house. And if I wanted to trash it by hosting mud parties in the living room, then that is my right! However, if I am renting that house I have a responsibility to the landlord to maintain it properly. Even if I wanted to improve the property by putting an addition onto it, I would have to have their permission.

What "Net Neutrality" did was say to the landlord; "If your tenant wants to knock down a wall to make more room, then you must let them! You cannot interfere with their rights!" The removal of the law now puts the control of the ISP back into the hands of the owners.

Respectfully, I disagree with your example. I think what it does is more like saying the landlord has the right to force the tenant to obtain their telephone service, maybe even their groceries, from a particular company. Knocking down a wall is more analogous, in my view,to something like using a modem that the ISP fears might not be compatible with their service. I am baffled as to how it makes any difference whether internet service is leased or purchased.

[Mr Mudster]

It is obviously an agree to disagree area! And it's also a matter of perspective. Most here work at the "consumer" end of the spectrum, since the business of producing videos and distributing them - as well as the downloading and enjoying of them - leads to a standard consumer model.

I work in the tech end, and have direct connections to the "supplier" end of the business. And I see how making things unlimited leads to abuses of the system and, yes, directly impacts the profits of the providers.

Neither side is intrinsically wrong. And while I'm vehemently opposed to the "taxes" model that Nessie mentioned (I am, after all, a staunch libertarian!) having a public "option" for Internet service isn't that far fetched of an idea. As long as it's an option and not a mandate. The last thing I want is a Russian or Chinese style Internet service here!

[Fred588]

If we all agreed there would be nothing to discuss. I think the concept of "unlimited" here (assuming it refers to unlimited data) is introducing something new to the discussion. The issue of net neutrality, as I understand it, is about an ISP favoring one content provider (web site) over another.

It is obviously an agree to disagree area! And it's also a matter of perspective. Most here work at the "consumer" end of the spectrum, since the business of producing videos and distributing them - as well as the downloading and enjoying of them - leads to a standard consumer model.

I work in the tech end, and have direct connections to the "supplier" end of the business. And I see how making things unlimited leads to abuses of the system and, yes, directly impacts the profits of the providers.

Neither side is intrinsically wrong. And while I'm vehemently opposed to the "taxes" model that Nessie mentioned (I am, after all, a staunch libertarian!) having a public "option" for Internet service isn't that far fetched of an idea. As long as it's an option and not a mandate. The last thing I want is a Russian or Chinese style Internet service here!

[Mr Mudster]

If we all agreed there would be nothing to discuss. I think the concept of "unlimited" here (assuming it refers to unlimited data) is introducing something new to the discussion. The issue of net neutrality, as I understand it, is about an ISP favoring one content provider (web site) over another.

Semantics! Unlimited, unrestricted, unblocked... in this case it simply means that ISP's should be allowed to control both who accesses their networks, and what services their networks may be used to access. If we force them to permit access to everything equally (unlimited) then we have become a Communist government, in a manner of speaking.

I will have nothing further to say on this topic, as I think it has gotten enough attention by me.

[Nessie]

in this case it simply means that ISP's should be allowed to control both who accesses their networks, and what services their networks may be used to access. If we force them to permit access to everything equally (unlimited) then we have become a Communist government, in a manner of speaking.

ISPs who can block and throttle have the power to present their customers with their own version of the truth. It will probably happen slowly and I hope some ISPs will do the right thing and never go there, but doing the right thing often doesn't come naturally.

Example: If the CEO of a huge ISP is a strong supporter of one political party but a popular discussion forum with many members strongly supports the opposing party, we just told this CEO that he can order the forum zapped out of existence without any consequences.

If there is another ISP available, the customer will actually have to change services to see the other viewpoint. And if the ISP happens to be the only one in that area, that dissenting forum is no longer accessible to anyone in the area, period.

An incomplete and manipulated information stream is exactly what Communist countries have.

Nessie

[Fred588]

I have to agree with Nessie here. While total and exact equality might be a tenet of some of the original claims of Marx it has never, ever been the practice of any Communist government. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Nessie has stated. I would argue, respectfully, that the idea of equality (which refers to rights, not identicalness) is best expressed as, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal...." [And very obviously "men" here refers to humankind and not the gender.]

in this case it simply means that ISP's should be allowed to control both who accesses their networks, and what services their networks may be used to access. If we force them to permit access to everything equally (unlimited) then we have become a Communist government, in a manner of speaking.

ISPs who can block and throttle have the power to present their customers with their own version of the truth. It will probably happen slowly and I hope some ISPs will do the right thing and never go there, but doing the right thing often doesn't come naturally.

Example: If the CEO of a huge ISP is a strong supporter of one political party but a popular discussion forum with many members strongly supports the opposing party, we just told this CEO that he can order the forum zapped out of existence without any consequences.

If there is another ISP available, the customer will actually have to change services to see the other viewpoint. And if the ISP happens to be the only one in that area, that dissenting forum is no longer accessible to anyone in the area, period.

An incomplete and manipulated information stream is exactly what Communist countries have.

Nessie