Net Neutrality...

[Kenny]

I found this on the web and just wondering:

Pros of net neutrality regulation

• Network neutrality avoids that ISPs charge online services such as XBox Live, Playstation Plus, Skype, and Netflix for "fast lanes". These extra costs for "fast lanes" are problematic because they can make the services more expensive for internet users and also may prevent small companies from the capacity to compete with the big companies who have the budget to reach agreements with ISPs.
• Net neutrality avoids discrimination among users ensuring similar access to information for people of different socio-economic status. Without neutrality, high-speed internet for entertainment could be prioritized over education. And ISPs could change premium fees (“pay-to-play”) to enjoy special access to public libraries, benefiting the richest people.
• Network neutrality helps to promote freedom of choice, as ISPs cannot obstruct or incentivize particular contents or sites over others.
• Anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules prevent the capacity of ISPs to arbitrary decide to limit access or promote some type of content.The role of ISPs is to only "transport" data to the users that have paid for delivery, and therefore they should not shape content consumption patterns.
• Net neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies.

Cons of net neutrality regulation

• Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.
• Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.
• Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.
• Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
• Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

What do you think?

 

[Nakosis]

I feel that internet access is too important to not regulate.

Let companies come up with some alternate privately owned solution which folks can pay extra for if they choose to.

 

[suncowiam]

Who owns the internet?

 

[sun rise]

I found this on the web and just wondering:
Cons of net neutrality regulation

• Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.

False. Net neutrality promotes new business ideas because people don't have to pay extra to get their businesses decent speed for customers to reach them.

• Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.

False - heavier internet users can and are being charged more under net neutrality.

• Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.

This is incoherent. "user data allotment" has nothing to do with net neutrality.

• Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”.

• Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.

BS. There's nothing about charging some businesses more for faster access that relates to piracy, copyright or monitoring.

• Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

This is the only one that makes sense. It's a libertarian vs government argument. I disagree because we already have a problem with plutocrats including gigantic businesses stepping on consumers' rights.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

ISPs in many regions are a monopoly in all but name. I can't see how anyone could argue a monopoly would care about innovation and new business concepts when they can just charge people who have no real alternatives with whatever they want. Especially given the essential nature of internet to most personal and business dealings today.
And with infrstructure costs so low for fat pipe bandwidth there's been no evidence that isps have come anywhere close to needing caps and have to 'ration.' Its only purpose is to line the pockets of the like of Comcast. Just like data caps on the phones only served to line the pockets of the likes of at&t. At least they have legitimate competitors (though I wouldn't be surprised if price fixing happens skimming the legal edge. The free market is evil.)

 

[idav]

One of the pros of getting rid of net neutrality is keeping voip services cheap since the internet wouldn’t be seen as a utility and can possibly get rid of archaic pot (plain ole telephone) lines. However that just makes the current monopolies even bigger. I certainly do not appreciate all the businesses throttling services I pay good money for so getting rid of net neutrality likely has more negative affects than anything and monopolies are horrible for the economy. Not like net neutrality has been good at stopping any of that either way, all companies have found ways around all of the supposed laws.