DISQUS

everywhere

How right you are! The threat to content on the Internet doesn't come from the ISPs. Right now the government may be content to just get their hands on how the Internet is run, but once they have control of that, how long before they want to regulate what each site does, posts, promotes, or explains.

I wonder how supportive Google and Microsoft will be of Internet Neutrality when they're the ones on the chopping block?

"So, two guys in a garage — who can’t afford to pay the tiering tarriff to each and every telco and cable company — won’t invent the _next_ Google."

The tiered plan as I understand it does not force people who refuse to pay off of the Internet. If you pay for priority service, you get increased reliability. If you don't pay, you remain on the current "best effort" system.

How is innovation of these garage startups hindered by not giving them the fastest possible internet connection? If their services are good enough, people will flock to them regardless of a slight difference in speed. And once they have enough interest and they want to upgrade to priority service, they have that option.

How is tiered access to the Internet a bad thing, when preferred rankings and tiered service levels at Content providing websites are not? It's the same principle at different areas of the Internet.

The demand for reliable, high-quality data is only going to grow, and the infrastructure is going to have to grow with it. If network neutrality legislation passes, then the brunt of that upgrade is going to fall to the consumer. The WSJ has it right; NN will slow growth and hurt out ability to keep up with our ever-growing data needs.

Is there any reason why we can't allow the ISPs to develop and use whatever business model they think will work best? I'm not as well versed in this subject as either of you, but it seems to me that these companies should have a good understanding of how the Internet works and should be able to come up with a good plan. The government can always be brought in to regulate later, but once we let them in, it will be tough to get them out if we decide we jumped the gun.

The net neutrality proponents cite the fact that in order to prioritize data for their tiered service plans, ISPs will have to monitor all the data traveling across their wires. But the proposed solution is to give the government the same (or more) latitude in monitoring Internet traffic and deciding where and how fast data can be sent. How people can so easily blind themselves to the threat NN regulation poses boggles the mind.

My opinion is that regulation can always be instituted when there is a need, but once we open the door to the government it'll be impossible to get them out again if we realized we were wrong. So why should we jump the gun and regulate the Internet because of things that MIGHT happen. I say let's wait until it's been proven that regulation is the only solution.

"The problem is if ISPs are allowed to _require_ content providers who are not their direct customers to pay a fee simply to cross the ISP's network."

You put the stress on require, I'd put it on _allowed to_. Just because they have the right to charge to cross their network doesn't mean they will. I know... I know... I've read all the doom and gloom reports too. But a far more likely model is the one where sites are given the option to pay for priority service. If they pay, they are given priority bandwidth and their data travels with increased reliability. If they don't pay, their data travels with the same speed and reliability it travels with now. Sure, they look slower because they don't pay, but it's only a relative slowness.

The real issue is whether the ISPs will be able to keep up with the demand for priority bandwidth, and what they plan to do if they can't.

It seems to me that the answer to the problem isn't increased regulation but increased competition. I don't know what factors cause the monopolies/duopoloies that exist in most markets, but something needs to be done about it. Competition is sure to increase with satellite, high-speed wireless, and fiber optic technologies developing, but in the meantime, if we could find a way to allow multiple high-speed providers into every market, that would do a far better job of preventing net abuses than any amount of government regulation.

I don't think regulation is required just because something might happen. I also don't think that consumers will allow their ISPs to significantly hamper their internet experience. If an ISP plays hardball and actually DOES slow a site like Google significantly, then consumers have the right to switch to a new provider. You could argue that there aren't many provider options in any given area, but that just means the already-established regulations that create the monopolies/duopolies should be lessened to allow greater competition. Competition and the free market, not over-regulation, is the key to maintaining network neutrality.