Question:
What exactly is net neutrality and why is it scary?
2009-10-20 14:57:27 UTC
What exactly is net neutrality and why is it scary?
Thirteen answers:
2009-10-20 15:01:53 UTC
It will give government the power to tell a private company (Internet Service Providers) how they can run their network. As a libertarian I'm opposed to this.
ATJ
2009-10-21 07:37:55 UTC
While the term is new, the basic concept originated in the age of the telegram in 1860 or even earlier, where telegrams were routed 'equally' without attempting to discern their contents and adjusting for one application or another. Such networks are "end-to-end neutral".



Services such as telegrams and the phone network (officially, the public switched telephone network or PSTN) are considered common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they are considered akin to public utilities and overseen by the FCC in order to ensure fair pricing and access; such networks are expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment.



In 1994, Al Gore said:



How can government ensure that the [nascent Internet] will permit everyone to be able to compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to all willing customers? Next, how can we ensure that this new marketplace reaches the entire nation? And then how can we ensure that it fulfills the enormous promise of education, economic growth and job creation? The scary part I believe is that the gov. would control what we do and say.
Brown9500v1
2009-10-20 22:05:16 UTC
[Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]



The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.]



~~~~~~~



[Opponents of net neutrality include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries.[5]



Network neutrality regulations are opposed by some of the Internet's most distinguished engineers, such as professor David Farber and TCP inventor Bob Kahn.[7][35] Vinton Cerf supports it while others oppose regulated network neutrality.[36]



Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: "The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer."[37]



Bob Kahn, one of the fathers of the Internet, has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.[7]



Dave Farber, Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber — Farber, known as the 'grandfather of the Internet' because he taught many of its chief designers, has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, stating, "The Internet needs a makeover. Unfortunately, congressional initiatives aimed at preserving the best of the old Internet threaten to stifle the emergence of the new one."[38]



Opposition also comes from think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.



A number of these opponents have created a website called Hands Off The Internet[39] to explain their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website comes from AT&T, and members include technology firms such as Alcatel, 3M and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[40] [41] [42][43] Corporate astroturfing is alleged.[40] For example, one print ad seems to frame the Hands Off the Internet message in pro-consumer terms. "Net neutrality means consumers will be stuck paying more for their Internet access to cover the big online companies' share," the ad claims.]
J P
2009-10-20 22:06:41 UTC
It's been sold as Government keeping us safe from greedy corporations who might otherwise make exclusive agreements regarding content. It's scary because it's the camel's nose under the tent. It establishes, for the first time, the government's authority and control over internet content. And the nature of government is to expand its control over time. The free market has worked pretty well up until now, and I see no reason to have the government dictating content.
2009-10-20 22:07:35 UTC
This is the determinant of your country's political influence. The formula is:



(military aggression) - (isolationism) = (political influence)



Right now, your country is at an infinity level of political influence. The goal is to net out military aggression by introducing any level of isolationism, to an end of "net neutrality" (zero political influence).
2009-10-20 22:18:14 UTC
It says that internet providers can't limit bandwidth to certain sites or block certain sites just because they want to.



Leave it to conservatards to say that something which prohibits corporate censorship is evil.
Steven S
2009-10-20 22:08:42 UTC
Read the bill - it gives control of the internet to the government. Meaning it will be taxed and monitored a thousand times more than it is today.
Mr.
2009-10-20 22:01:34 UTC
net neutrality is a principle on which the internet is governed...(or not governed rather).



net neutrality is not scary, it's essential to the internet's "usefulness".





Net Neutrality means, that telcom providers cannot regulate, control, or classify traffic for different protocols and give less of a class of service to one type of traffic over another. All internet traffic is treated equally.



They cannot treat residential traffic with less priority than commercial traffic. They cannot block websites or access to networks.



Furthermore, they cannot "UPCHARGE" you for going over an alotted bandwidth. For example.. you sign up for unlimited useage...they cannot tack on fees for what they deem excessive useage..(p2p). They cannot block p2p sharing either.





What would be the result of not having Net Neutrality ?... your internet provider could play "favorites". Your access to websites and services would be "governed"...or "capped"... ...which would result in programmers creating applications that all use PORT 80, in order circumvent a providers QOS policies. This would make it very difficult to identify traffic and route traffic and QOS on private networks as well.
2009-10-20 22:03:42 UTC
It's fundamental to internet freedom. The only people who find it scary are those with something to lose through the free exchange of ideas.
niHil
2009-10-21 02:35:29 UTC
Obama want's to do to the internet what he is doing to FOX
yup_u_r_retarded
2009-10-20 22:01:04 UTC
It's a P.C. way to say "Control" Just like the "Fairness" doctrine...
2009-10-20 22:02:51 UTC
another way for 0bama to quell free speech!
?
2009-10-20 22:01:20 UTC
another cog in obama's radical plans.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...