Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Help: Explain Net Neutrality to Me

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:48 AM
Original message
Help: Explain Net Neutrality to Me
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:49 AM by Superman Returns
I would like to learn more about this issue. I went to the site Savetheinternet.com and learned some things. However, the site obviously has an agenda which may be good but is not objective for me to know the whole story. I just would like to hear an objective point of view because when I talked about it with some people, they dismissed the movement as corporation v. corporation in which sites like google were simply protecting their turf through these "grassroot" outlets. So, please educate me a bit or direct me in a place where I can learn more without the site having an actual agenda.

Thanks,

Man of Seel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. The highways of the internet.
Let's say your state decided that half the lanes on the highways could only be used by people who paid a new fee of $1,000 per month.

Then rich people would get around faster, everyone else would get around slower.

AT&T wants to set aside some of its lines only for profitable websites which can pay big fees.

If they're allowed to, then the highly profitable websites will run faster.

Other websites, like this one, will probably run more slowly.


http://www.savetheinternet.com /







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. ok thanks
but what about this argument made by a poster on another forum,

"It's corporate dick-swinging on both ends.

The telcos want to charge companies as much as possible for their bandwidth. And sites like Google don't want to pay extortion fees in order to not be packet shaped. The amount of impact this would have on average Joe internet user is miniscule, except that the Googles of the world have turned this into a "grassroots" campaign to "save the internet."

I have to applaud the genius of the move though, turning essentially what is a squabble between warring communications factions into "our" issue. If this campaign was called "Billion dollar companies want to save money when dealing with other billion dollar companies," we'd just shrug and move on. Possibly laughing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. But it is grass-roots who want net neutrality
John Conyers cosponsored a bill for net neutrality, he's not a corporate shill. Net neutraility is favored by thousands of users, engineers, and computer scientists. The only people against net neutrality are the telcos and ISP's that want to extort money.

Here's an example: a lot of people use youtube for videos. not google or yahoo. Why? Because the people at youtube did a better job - they built a better mousetrap. With net neutrality, there is full competition - users can go to whichever site does the job best for them. Remove net neutrality and what happens? Google buys a bunch of reserved bandwidth, Yahoo buys a bunch of reserved bandwidth, ESPN and other tv companies buy bandwidth even though their not ready to use it. Then youtube suddenly doesn't work so well anymore - the ISP's have been selling reserved bandwidth on new fiber-optic cable, and letting the infrastructure on the less profitable non-reserved cables decay. So youtube decides to buy some reserved bandwidth - too late, all the new bandwidth is already reserved. Youtube becomes useless. So now all the users switch to yahoo or google video. But yahoo and google have to pay for the reserved bandwidth they bought - that means more ads - you have to watch a two-minute ad for McDonalds before you can see the 30-second video clip you wanted to watch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Here's a post that cuts to the chase
From an earlier thread on the subject...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hippo_Tron Mon Jun-19-06 04:43 PM

17. Took me a while but I've decided that I support net neutrality

It's really interesting how different groups feel about the issue

Pro Net Neutrality...

Google
Microsoft
Moveon.org
The Christian Coalition

Anti Net Neutrality...

The Telecommunications Industry

I've heard both sides of the argument and what this seems to come down to is that somebody isn't telling the truth. The Telecommunications Industry says that it is only going to make some sites faster and not make any sites slower. Pro Net Neutrality people say otherwise.

I've decided to side with Net Neutrality simply because of the propaganda ads that I've seen from the Telecommunications Industry. The ads don't define the issue and state their side of the issue they just say "Tell congress to support Internet Freedeom" and since they seem to be inclined to hide what they support with buzzwords like "Internet Freedom", I'm inclined not to trust them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. One way this could affect the average person is with email.
Right now, email is extremely reliable, because as the data for an email goes through various ISPs, each just passes the data along.

But if each ISP decides that it's going to re-route their rivals emails onto its crummiest lines, while reserving its best lines for its own email, then the reliablity of email will go to Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's an objective take.
Basically the major telcos want to lay a bunch of new fiber, which needs to be done, but they want to have control over the content that moves over the fiber, and give some precedent over others. So basically, in theory, this is good because certain joes can pay for fast Internet while others go more slowly...but a deeper look shows its really dangerous, because the telcos will become major content providers, and use their control to supress other content. Think of it like if certain radio stations could control the laws of physics so that other radio stations could not send out signals that others could hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Here's a good post about it on dailykos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. everything you need to know...
net neutrality is good. The internet is equal access for everyone, like it has always been.

as opposed to corporations being gatekeepers of all info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I believe it applies to website owners
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:40 AM by PBass
We already do NOT have equality among users... 'your' dialup connection is slow, while I pay more for DSL, and get bigger bandwidth. However, even with this system, all the websites I might visit would theoretically load up at the same speed. The "big" websites do not load up any faster than the small websites.

Without net neutralty, mega-huge websites like MSN or Google could pay extra to have their websites load super-fast, while the home-grown website you made to discuss Peak Oil (or whatever) loads at a snails pace, because you couldn't pay the big bucks. With net neutrality, no websites get special treatment as far as traffic (visitors) and loading speeds. Nobody pays extra, and nobody gets special 'through-put'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. but the ACCESS is not slowed
yes, what you pay for service determines the speed you receive, but the original site for a DSL subscriber loads at the same speed whether it is a major corp or a 'personal site'. Defeating net-neutrality would change that.

so we agree. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Oh sure, we agree...
I was just blabbering, off in my own little world, and not editorializing about your post.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. Quite simply this is the corporate takeover of the internet
Small players will be locked out. The internet's low barrier to entry - the reason why it is such a democratic institution - will disappear. Only big players with lots of money will be able to provide high quality services. Small sites will be in the low quality ghetto.

Today all packets entering the internet are treated equally and receive the same quality of service. The carriers would like to change that so that they can charge extra for high quality service. The end result will be that small sites will get shitty service and large corporations with deep pockets will dominate and control the internet.

Ultimately this is about abolishing the democracy of the internet and returning this media to the corporate fold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. The internet is the Public Square.
It is absolutely necessary to keep this line of communication open and as uncorrupted as possible. It should be enshrined into our Constitutional right of assembly as soon as possible.

When the oligarchy tried the "big take over" before,(Nixon years) the mainstream press was free and able to fight on behalf of the people. The big money people SAW THAT and proceeded to neuter our Fourth Estate as completely as possible, so that the information wouldn't get down to the "great unwashed".

NOW they can see that they are being stymied by email, and forums, and blogs and THEY NOTICE! They are at this very moment crafting the plugs to keep information away from us again.

ANY attempt to censor this stream of information does NOT HAVE THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AT HEART. And we will know them by their attempts to cut us off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SuperWonk Donating Member (355 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Congressional worries
I'm all for freedom of access and information, but Congress' understanding of the Internet in general, much less something as complex as network neutrality, is so inadequate that I'm worried about any attempts on their part to legislate the net, regardless of what position they take. One need only to look at the original telco act to see the dangers of trying to legislate the future of something like the net. And with Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens at the helm, who knows what they'll come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. That's my biggest fear too! I haven't heardONE Senator
who actually discussed the net and sounded like he knew what he was talking about! Afast talking, convincinggroup from any of these corps. could easily sway the vote to their side!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well, since Wikipedia can be edited by people on both sides...
...you might want to check it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Though there's no guarantee that somewhere in the last few edits someone slanted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
15. So, it's about controlling "the tubes".
Corporate America wants to control "the tubes" just like they control the media: what we watch and what we read. They don't like the fact that we can use any "tube" we want to get our information on the "internets". They want to control "the tubes" to make sure more people are using their "preferred tube".
They want to put a gigantic detour sign on the information super highway so everyone has to go by their place of business. The interstate highways killed rural America and they want to do the same thing to "the internets".
It's all about money, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
17. thanks to everyone
I appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. Watch this video from 'NOW' on PBS - It explains it nicely!
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/222/net-neutrality.html

Tangled Web

Program Resources:
Listen to this show
Transcript
E-mail this page to a friend

Is the wild west culture of the Internet about to become a thing of the past?
Big business is staking its claim on the information superhighway, lobbying
Congress for an exclusive faster lane, which consumers could end up paying for.

This week on NOW we look at a major battle brewing in Washington D.C. over the future of the Internet.

We follow the story of Blip.tv, an ambitious video-streaming startup.
They're fighting for a corner of the Internet marketplace in the midst of a battle over so-called 'net neutrality' --
the idea that all Internet content and websites are given the same access to audiences and customers.

If telecommunication giants have their way, companies like Blip.tv might be forced to compete
in a marketplace
wherein firms with large coffers can buy access to greater bandwidth and faster Internet speeds,
leaving sites who can't afford to pay in the slow lane.

Craig Aaron of Free Press, a media watchdog group, says big telecom companies have declared
open season on 'Net neutrality.'
He's afraid these companies will dictate how we use the Internet.

"I think one of the beauties of the Internet is that it's been open to views across the political spectrum.
And if you hand the control of the information so that some can be preferred over others,
you're going to be handing that control to the big media companies that already control
our television, airwaves, radio, you name it," Aaron says.



http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=...

Hands Off Our Internet!

You think the Internet will always be the great freewheeling information superhighway you've grown to love?
Well, think again. Media giants want to privatize our Internet.
Telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress for the right
to control where you go on the Internet, how fast you get there, and how much you pay for the service.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC