can someone explain net neutrality?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rtwngAvngr, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    What is this all about? I'm too lazy and on cursory readings both sides say they're for freedom.

    Which one will keep complete freedom of content and speech and speed?
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Net neutrality means providers have to let all sites be accessed at the same speed and can't get paid to speed up any particular corporation's links or make a link for a political site move faster if the provider agrees with the politics of one particular side.

    There is nothing pro freedom about wanting there NOT to be net neutrality.
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    Yeah. That sounds good. All sites accessed equally, that's what I'm for.
     
  4. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    I guess to a certain extent. So long as it's not saying that your bargain hunting server gets to dictate page load times for well-hosted domains.

    Just like anything, you should be able to purchase better hosting options, but I agree that one provider shouldn't adjust the throttle based on the payment coming in.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Yeah...me, too. :thewave:

    So a well-funded corporation or governmental outfit should be able to purchase more access than, say, an underfunded 501-c-3 corporation? Or a political blog that maybe belongs to folk of a wealthier political ideology?
     
  6. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    Just like advertising time.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Different. The internet is supposed to give us access to ALL information, not just well-funded information. If companies or political parties want to take out ads, they are free to, within FCC and FEC rules. Discouraging people from accessing information, no matter how unpopular, particularly when so many now get information from the internet would have major free speech implications.
     
  8. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    Well if the question is whether everyone should have access, that's a no brainer. You were asking about everyone having pages that all loaded at the same rate. That's internet socialism.

    The internet is one giant advertisement. Everyone is trying to get their message out. Everyone has the ACCESS to advertise however they want. That doesn't mean everyone should get their own 30 second spot during the superbowl.
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    No. That's free flow of information. Do you think the NY Times should load faster than, say, The NY Post simply because a particular provider approves more of the things the post says? Or should CNN's site load faster than FoxNews if the provider doesn't like Fox? Or WaPo? Or any other information source?
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    No clay. The host servers owned by whatever company can be as good or as bad as whatever the companies pay for. The telecoms should not be able to pass packets with specific destination ips to second grade servers just because they're not getting paid off.
     

Share This Page