Monday, February 5, 2007

Net neutrality to the masses

Why is it that in the last month I've seen more and more Net Neutrality awareness TV commercials? I did some quick search on Google, and realized that the fight is not over yet.
Senators keep introducing bills in favor and against Net Neutrality. The interesting thing about this commercials on TV is that there are in favor and against too!. I would think that the users would prefer an Internet where broadband providers will not enforce service levels with faster access for certain applications or destinations. However, apparently, some see this as a plus... I wonder why? (If you have a reason, please comment on this, because I am seriously cracking my head here).
Net Neutrality only benefits the consumer!. No limitations where to go, what to do with your Internet connection, not only allows cliched "Freedom of Speech", but more importantly fosters innovation (i.e. Developers at home can create anything at very low cost).
The only reason that I could think of (it's close, but not enough) is because consumers may see that having different levels will introduce different price structures, and will be able to get broadband Internet for less - mainly because broadband providers will not have to subsidise low profit users. However, this is not entirely true. What benefit can a user gain from paying $10 for broadband, while getting only access to Email and certain sites? The evil behind it is greater - having long LSAs (that we never read, by the way) with limitations to your service....
Please, I encourage comments this time... I don't really understand why there are two sides of the coin for end users here.

3 comments:

Luke said...

Reason against net neutrality.
1. There looking to introduce legistation for a problem that doesn't exist. Why try to repair the wheel thats working fine.
2. If the SP's take money from certain sites e.g. YouTube to upgrade there infrastrucuture & enhance the user expierence only the consumer benefits. All other sites are exactly the same but youtube is that much faster if you choose to use it.

There is alot of BS from both sides of this debate. Watch careful & look to see which problems are actually occuring & which are fairytails

Leo Boulton said...

Thanks for the comments. My personal opinion is that the ultimate goal must be to give consumers the best experience on the web that they can get. On the other hand, we should keep government from over-regulating anything that touches the Internet (Technology moves quickly and no government can keep-up with it).
Well, we must stand on one side. Therefore the solution is: Give consumers what they want, and let them be free in the Internet.... regulate only when necessary: Fight to gain a regulated neutral Internet and force the evil forces of Service Providers,.... or keep it unregulated and let SP's do whatever they want with their service.
In the end, I agree with Luke in that there is a lot of BS on both sides...
As a side note, see Cisco's position on Net Neutrality here: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2006/corp_031506b.html

Luke said...

There you go for the net I think it should be freedom by default .. then IF a problem exists legislate specifically for that problem. Instead of trying to predict the future.
Good deal.