The net needs to stay the way it is! Giving favorable treatment to big corporate websites will kill the little guy. Change is constant, but not everything has to change.
I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition on this issue and wanted to pass along a few points and links. As you mention change is constant and one thing that is certainly always changing is the internet.
We don't have net neutrality now, so technically instituting net neutrality regulations would constitute a change. As this entry from Kung Fu Quip mentions, "Net neutrality" has never applied to cable.
"The proponents will tell you that net neutrality has always been - based on a law that applied to 40% of the broadband connections carried by DSL lines. It never applied to cable - which accounts for about 60% of the broadband connections. So NN was never “the founding principle”. It was a hindrance to DSL, and the lack of it allowed cable to arrive on the scene and steal the market (well, that and the fact that cable had faster lines and a $100 billion network investment to make it better)."
http://www.kungfuquip.com/archives/569
Net neutrality regulations would create many more problems than they seek to solve (and these problems are merely hypothetical). Again, highlighting the point that the net isn't "neutral" in the sense that many claim,
"If, for example, an online retailer paid an ISP to make its Web site more rapidly accessible (by providing more bandwidth), this would not necessarily prevent users from going to a rival’s slower site. At least, it wouldn’t be more of a deterrent than poor design, outdated information or other factors that consumers use to judge a Web site — many of which also cost more to do well. And on today’s supposedly “neutral” Net, any Web site can speed up its accessibility by paying for a more powerful host. So the Net has never been “neutral.” Yet it has grown rapidly and magnificently anyway. Net neutrality would slow down the investment needed to maintain the high level of innovation we’ve seen."
As I mentioned just one of the problems with the proposed net neutrality regulations relates to prioritization. Not how it is framed by some proponents, but in this manner,
"Today’s innovations are allowing service providers to speeding up some types of content, such as Voice Over Internet Protocol for telephony, without affecting other content. Such prioritizing would be illegal under Net neutrality."
Posts
1 comment:
I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition on this issue and wanted to pass along a few points and links. As you mention change is constant and one thing that is certainly always changing is the internet.
We don't have net neutrality now, so technically instituting net neutrality regulations would constitute a change. As this entry from Kung Fu Quip mentions, "Net neutrality" has never applied to cable.
"The proponents will tell you that net neutrality has always been - based on a law that applied to 40% of the broadband connections carried by DSL lines. It never applied to cable - which accounts for about 60% of the broadband connections. So NN was never “the founding principle”. It was a hindrance to DSL, and the lack of it allowed cable to arrive on the scene and steal the market (well, that and the fact that cable had faster lines and a $100 billion network investment to make it better)."
http://www.kungfuquip.com/archives/569
Net neutrality regulations would create many more problems than they seek to solve (and these problems are merely hypothetical). Again, highlighting the point that the net isn't "neutral" in the sense that many claim,
"If, for example, an online retailer paid an ISP to make its Web site more rapidly accessible (by providing more bandwidth), this would not necessarily prevent users from going to a rival’s slower site. At least, it wouldn’t be more of a deterrent than poor design, outdated information or other factors that consumers use to judge a Web site — many of which also cost more to do well. And on today’s supposedly “neutral” Net, any Web site can speed up its accessibility by paying for a more powerful host. So the Net has never been “neutral.” Yet it has grown rapidly and magnificently anyway. Net neutrality would slow down the investment needed to maintain the high level of innovation we’ve seen."
As I mentioned just one of the problems with the proposed net neutrality regulations relates to prioritization. Not how it is framed by some proponents, but in this manner,
"Today’s innovations are allowing service providers to speeding up some types of content, such as Voice Over Internet Protocol for telephony, without affecting other content. Such prioritizing would be illegal under Net neutrality."
http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.org/?page_id=52
Thanks.
Post a Comment