Verizon vs. Net Neutrality

[Russ Pitts]

This, like most issues involving government, big business and "an idea" is probably one about which you've already heard a great deal, and perhaps made up your mind. In which case, carry on.

If you want to dig a little deeper, however and (to quote a guy with a very sexy voice) "see how deep the rabbit hole goes," come with me ?

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Brisby

The sad thing is I am never ready to start ponying up the cash. Damn. I guess I'll just have to pretend to be surprised and slightly miffed when this whole thing goes through. On the plus side this'll provide another "back in my day..." story to tell the kids.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Mitch
http://www.gamingtrend.com
Brisby, I agree with you. Also, this is simply the nature of business. You don't think Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft won't pony up the cash to make their sites available? There's money to be made and I'm surprised it's taken the government this long to figure out how to get at it. Also, I disagree with the argument that sites who can't afford to pay extra won't load as quickly as some others. I think what you're ultimately comparing is a 1 second load time versus a three to five second load time. Big whoop. I go back to 9600 Baud, baby, I know what slow is.

Also, our sites are maintained on different levels of infrastructure across the world and all of those hosting companies are in turn owned by larger companies. Everyone may pay a little more but I don't see it as "pay an extra $1,000 a month or you're relegated to the SLOW LANE." How slow? My page takes five seconds to load up as opposed to Google's which takes one second? Oh shucks. Hell, IGN takes forever to load now and they have NewsCorp. backing them.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Mark
http://frontal-lobe.net
As long as ISPs are common carriers, then the idea of Net Neutrality should be moot - it already applies by default.

That being said, even if Net Neutrality is no longer enforced by law, no small part of me believes that the market will support it. We are seeing now a situation where large corporations, content providers, are taking moral stances on an issue. It'd be absurd to expect them to boycott ISPs - but what if Google or Amazon sends pages to non-Neutral ISPs that say "If this page loads slowly, this may be the reason," and link to a page about net neutrality, you can bet that any non-neutral ISP will be feeling it in the pocketbook in a matter of weeks. And Google and Amazon would do something crafty like that. The only thing that'd hurt them worse would be flat-out not showing Google and Yahoo.

So yeah, I'm not terribly worried about it. A few brief hiccups and then the invisble hand takes over.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: me!
http://forty-sixandtwo.blogspot.com/
Now, I'm relatively new to this discussion on Net Neutrality so I'm looking at both sites provided. "Save the Internet" has a nice little video to describe what 'could' happen. Is it me or is passing a bill ensuring Net Neutrality just another way to prevent monopolies? At least that how I see it when framed according to "Save the Internet".

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Scotthal
http://www.thegamechair.com
As energy costs continue to spiral out of control, the distinction between luxury and necessity is going to get a lot more clear to a lot more people. My budget is already stretched to the limit, and if Internet fees increase, I will have no choice but to reduce the level of Internet service I receive. I will not pony up more cash because there simply is no more cash to pony. The Internet really is a luxury. Heating my house and getting back and forth to work are necessities.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Bob_Arctor

Heh. I don't think any government will address anything from an environmental point of view. They're all talk and I hate them for it.

The very fact it's cheaper to fly than to take a train while travelling in the UK, which is not a big country, shows that the government couldn't give a damn.

I have no idea how they'll do all this net stuff though. I can't imagine seeing things changing much. . Surely deliberately slowing down the net for money will stifle growth? It's suicide from a capitalism point of view surely?

 

[Russ Pitts]

Original Comment by: Mitch
http://www.gamingtrend.com
Well, the one immutable constant in the universe is money and since there is money enough to be made for all I think a common resolution will be reached sooner rather than later. Look at the threatened Blackberry service disruption. That could be boiled down to a judge setting a hard deadline for the two parties to shut up and deal. With that much money on the line there was no way any service would be disrupted, and I think that applies infinitely moreso to the internet.

A slight glitch then we're all happily living back in the Matrix. Unfortunately for me, high-speed internet access is so much a necessity now that it's staggering. Painful in fact looking at my monthly Comcast bill and silently cursing the Internet Gods.