Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Not sure if you understand the argument....
I Do Understand the Argument
You need to go back and look at the history of this issue. The laws that enforced Net Neutrality have lapsed, and that's the only reason why we're even talking about this now.
Both you and Cato's poster have made a general argument about how a completely unrelated regulation went bad and used it as a reason why well-meaning regulations can be subverted by regulators as a theoretical exercise not that this regulation was bad, but that corrupt people can subvert the process. The fact is that corrupt people were already subverting the process, and that's why the ICC was created in the first place. The argument is, once again, that regulations and regulators are bad, not that Net Neutrality isn't something we need.
We already have cases where telecom companies have been caught blocking Voice Over IP technologies to their customers because they were selling a competing product. Bad people behave badly sometimes, whether they're business owners, consumers, or regulators.
Do you have an actual argument for why Net Neutrality is a bad idea?
- tojo2000
August 31, 2008 6:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Topic of the Debate
Okay, so certain provisions in FCC regulations have lapsed or rather the status of broadband has changed sections of the Communications Act or whatever.
Regardless, the fact is the Save the Internet group wants to make this (and new sets of regulations) more permanent in a bill by Congress under the rubric of "Net Neutrality". As regulations and regulators are bad as you say (and I agree), and "Net Neutrality" is a bill of regulations to be passed in Congress, how is this not the very essence of the argument against Net Neutrality? This is, after all, an OV Debate between Save the Internet and Cato Institute primarily after all.
The other possibility is the "idea" of Net Neutrality, which is that, irrespective of government interference in general, should broadband providers be anything other than mere forwarders of IP packets along their networks? If that's what you're debating, that the idea of Net Neutrality is good or not in the absence of government, I don't believe that is what this OV debate is about.
As for what I think on this, I would say that there would certainly be an argument for prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others. For instance, it would not be good for any real-time (or close approximation thereof) type of traffic (TV/movies over the Internet, or VOIP calls, etc.) to be delayed (or dropped altogether) because of some web traffic or file transfer packets got there first. As for outright blocking or slowing of competitors offerings, well, that may be a shame, but then again it *is* the providers' network. They may do it, and they will also run the risk of retaliation by their customers over it. Who knows? If more and more providers enter the fray, possibilities of completely free (to consumers anyway) broadband services might be possible, costs being paid solely by the content providers like Google (kinda like over the air TV - free, paid with ads), with pay models having a more "neutral" packet delivery. Would that happen? Maybe not, but at least it's possible without an imposed Net Neutrality, and there may be other possibilities unimaginable right now.
But, getting back to the OV debate topic as I read it, there is no reason to codify this into law, which effectively hands (more) power over the Internet to the FCC. It's plenty powerful enough already.
- strawhatguy
August 31, 2008 9:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.