Internet Nuetrallity

[antman120]

There is a law bieng lobbied in congress that states that ISP will be able to tell you what you can look at on the web . For more info go to www.pvponline.com and click the link.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

It isn't about what you can look at, it is about whether ISPs can priortize resource usage so that subscribing companies can get their data delivered faster than a non-subscribing company.

In theory it is designed to encourage ISPs to upgrade their capabilities, something that is expensive for them and doesn't necessarily generate suffient returns to justify the expense. They are not supposed to be able to refuse content delivery, but they may be allowed to block data from using the high-speed lanes of the information superhighway without paying.

The concern is that the ISPs will neglect the infrastructure that the non-subscribing companies are forced to use in favor of the speedy systems used by subscribers.

Its not the censorship scenario that some people are making it out to be, its more like product placement - the companies that pay get their stuff in a nice display on an endcap, everyone else go find it in the bins with the rest of the stuff.

The alternative is the ISPs could just charge all the end-users more for the services. I'm not sure that is a more palatable solution to most people.

[edit] Read through some more of the links. A little more to it than meets the eye, but IMO there is a lot of rhetoric being posted on both sides, neither of which tells the complete story.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

More reading (reading bills and the Federal Register is so much fun) - the main misrepresentation that I can see here is that the COPE act does not specifically allow ISPs to charge for preferential service, but neither does it prohibit it. There is currently nothing stopping an ISP from charging to service, and passing COPE would not change that.

If you are truly concerned about Net Neutrality in the U.S. and are going to sign petitions or write to a lawmaker, understand that you should be encouraging legislation enacting some form of net neutrality. Opposing COPE won't create net neutrality.

I won't go any further to prevent any possibility of this becoming a political discussion.

 

[Quasqueton]

I've always thought the Internet was Chaotic Neutral. It's a Lawful Neutral kind of thing to make a law requiring it to be Neutral.

Quasqueton

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've always thought the Internet was Chaotic Neutral. It's a Lawful Neutral kind of thing to make a law requiring it to be Neutral.

Quasqueton

Well, I know a lot of people who are sure that the internet is eeevil...

 

[gray stranger]

Actually I consider every site to have a separate alignment of it's own, and consider the net the same alignment as earth, I.E. none

HAH, top that

 

[antman120]

More reading (reading bills and the Federal Register is so much fun) - the main misrepresentation that I can see here is that the COPE act does not specifically allow ISPs to charge for preferential service, but neither does it prohibit it. There is currently nothing stopping an ISP from charging to service, and passing COPE would not change that.

If you are truly concerned about Net Neutrality in the U.S. and are going to sign petitions or write to a lawmaker, understand that you should be encouraging legislation enacting some form of net neutrality. Opposing COPE won't create net neutrality.

I won't go any further to prevent any possibility of this becoming a political discussion.

Thanks. I didnt want to start a poltical discussion, just spread the word. Thanks for not letting it go that way.

 

[dragonhead]

PVP did a good job poking fun of the nutrality act thing, visit the site at www.pvponline.com