Understanding Net Neutrality

(AP)

Still trying to get a handle on this whole "net neutrality" thing? We wrote a short post about it a few weeks ago, but if you're still trying to wrap your head around it – and we don't blame you – check out this helpful primer from HowStuffWorks. It's just about the best short explanation we've seen of the nature of net neutrality and the debate that has arisen around it.

Here's an excerpt:

Defeating net neutrality would give telecom companies the ability to charge content-providers (like Google, eBay and Amazon) to use their bandwidth and, in essence, have access to their subscribers. Not only would the content providers have access to the telecom subscribers, by paying they would have preferred access -- higher bandwidth and better delivery of their content. At the heart of this strategy is the telecoms' claim that they need revenue to make necessary updates to Internet infrastructure. Emerging technologies and media require improvements, they say, and the money has to come from somewhere.

Those in favor of regulation worry that telecoms will abuse their control and punish companies that won't pay up. Catherine Yang of "Business Week" explains that, "The network operators could block consumers from popular sites such as Google, Amazon, or Yahoo! in favor of their own. Or they could degrade delivery of Web pages whose providers don't pay extra. Google's home page, for instance, might load at a creep, while a search engine backed by the network company would zip along."

The whole thing's here.

[darwufche]

Why is America so paranoid of "equality"...on any level? It is a base concept of our founding fathers for god's sake. Just shows how much it is about self serving greed, and nothing more.

[alphaa10-2009]

BellSouth is one of several baby bells born in the 1980's after market "deregulation". However, as government regulators deregulated, they merely changed the rules, they did not eliminate them. So, if even deregulated markets run by regulation, but only a system of wise rules brings benefit, how can we make the wisest system possible? Who defines wisdom, and who makes the rules? History shows only a market of, by and for all players brings a rational, consistent, mutual benefit. That definition of rule-maker comes closest to what we mean by regulation by the governed, not a privileged few. Under such a system, all players have a reasonably equivalent chance of benefit. All roads work for a generally agreed upon idea of good access for all who use them. Likewise, all connection to the internet provides a generally-agreed upon level of good access, no matter where purchased. Such self-regulation by the governed is also an effective definition of consumer benefit. Through their government, all market players decide what their market rules and benefits will be. Such a consumer-regulated market is one definition of net neutrality. In contrast, BellSouth and others insist only they should decide what benefits us. This forces us back centuries to the era of royalty holding power and making decisions without our consent. Almost by definition, theirs is no longer a market but the private preserve of a privileged few.