 |
 |
 |
|
RE: it ain't neutral
I agree with your three points on what we should be focusing on in the net neutrality debate, but I think the first point (what are the carriers doing wrong) is exactly why we're talking specifically about net neutrality. They're trying to lock people out and make the internet into a walled garden. They want to be able to charge Google more money so that I can get it faster (or slower if Google doesn't pay) no matter if I pay for myself a slow connection or a fast connection. They want to keep generic VoIP solutions off their networks by blocking traffic coming from certain providers (probably because they want to provide their own solution and charge money for that). They only want to offer me a faster connection to a site if it's under their section of the network as they might be able to define their network by sites that pay for such access. As you are, I'm all for tiered service speeds, so I can have my 1 terabit connection, and my parents can have their much slower connection for their emails. However, when I email my parents a link to a site that I think they can use (perhaps your blog), I expect them to have the same access even though they're using a different provider because they're connecting to the same net that I'm connecting to. To me, that's what net neutrality is about. Access less than speed ([edit addition]: although on the net, access can be as much about speed as access itself), but even in that case, if I pay for a faster connection and they pay for a slower connection, they don't inherently have a faster connection to that site because my provider throttles my connection to that site, or their provider throttles their connection up regards of what they're already paying. I think we're talking about net neutrality now because the telcos and others are forcing us to, but the words net neutrality could have stronger representation in certain circles. There are responses to this message:
|
