Can somebody please explain "net neutrality" to me?

[PeteEU]

A few people I talked to said they had download limits.

Only so much can be dl'd a month.

Well then it is their own fault for choosing such a company. It is hardly the norm in Europe.

 

[Cyberhwk]

Well then it is their own fault for choosing such a company. It is hardly the norm in Europe.

Many places in the United States are very rural and don't have such options. In fact, I think some places still don't have broadband PERIOD.

AS for OP, here's my take:

FOR "Net Neutrality": You don't want to see this...

Argument AGAINST "Net Neutrality": It's the ISP's "tube" they should get to say what goes through it.

 

[PeteEU]

Many places in the United States are very rural and don't have such options. In fact, I think some places still don't have broadband PERIOD.

I know. Even larger towns and cities dont have options in the US. Hence the problem.

There are areas in Europe with no broadband too, or limited choice, but we are talking about very rural areas with few people.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well then it is their own fault for choosing such a company. It is hardly the norm in Europe.

Hmpf, they were talking like it was the norm.

Guess it was just their service package.

 

[kaya'08]

Hmpf, they were talking like it was the norm.

Guess it was just their service package.

Im originally a London lad, from one of the busiest European capitals population wise and commercially. We have free internet access in places like Starbucks, and so on, and not once have i encountered a hot spot. I know they are a lot cheaper to use, so if people deliberately buy internet services with download caps on them, and they are not big downloaders, even if they are not in a hot spot, i dont blame them at all.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Im originally a London lad, from one of the busiest European capitals population wise and commercially. We have free internet access in places like Starbucks, and so on, and not once have i encountered a hot spot. I know they are a lot cheaper to use, so if people deliberately buy internet services with download caps on them, and they are not big downloaders, even if they are not in a hot spot, i dont blame them at all.

I wasn't trying to be a dick about it, I just thought it was the norm.

That sounds pretty cool to tell you the truth.
More choice is always better.

 

[kaya'08]

I wasn't trying to be a dick about it, I just thought it was the norm.

That sounds pretty cool to tell you the truth.
More choice is always better.

I know mate. I'm just saying. :2razz:
Its always helpful to have a first hand account. To be honest with you, its the way the Internet should be, always has been, and always should be.

 

[rivrrat]

As it is now, with ISPs having a monopoly in the areas they service, I must concede that they should not be allowed to ban access to certain sites. I loathe restrictions on free market and loathe govt involvement, but as it is right now there is no true competition due to govt zoning laws. So, essentially with Net Neutrality, the govt would be stepping in to help fix what they have broken. It's THEIR rules that don't allow true competition, and because of that they then have to forbid censorship since users would have no choice but to use the ISP that services their area.

I would prefer that the govt allow ISPs to truly compete with one another in the same areas, then Net Neutrality laws wouldn't be required. But since that's not happening in the foreseeable future, I have to side on Net Neutrality... reluctantly.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Net neutrality is simple :

The ISP's are there to provide the 'service' of 'access' to the internet 'pipes'. When you sign onto an ISP you get access to those pipes, and the ISP can regulate how much information 'flow' you are accounting for and regulate that... HOWEVER they do not have the right to regulate the CONTENT flowing through those pipes.

So, when Telus (in Canada) blocked through the ISP internet searches dealing with their union disputes they violated net-neutrality by putting controls over the content passing through their systems.

Simply, the question is : Do you believe that the internet should be a medium of free-expression or corporate controlled expression??

Without net neutrality the internet will eventually become a slightly more interactive television set... where there are 500 channels but nothing on. Oh, also, if you make a blog, you not only have to contend with that websites terms of use, but you also may violate your ISP's terms of use, and in the extreme would mean banning you from their service.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

There is no problem that can be solved by restricting certain web traffic that can't also be solved by adding more bandwidth. The telecom companies have neglected improvements in infrastructure, and the rest of the developed world is pulling ahead of America in the price and speed of internet access.