Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Net Neutrality!

So here is a subject that affects all of us. Net Neutrality. Wikepedia has some good information about the history of the subject as well. This is really a huge issue for our generation and those younger of course. The Internet has absolutely changed the way we live. In both positive ways and I would say negative ways. Network neutrality is supported widely by large Internet content companies and opposed by large communication carriers. This is an issue that has sort of taken a back seat lately to who is buying who but I think its a topic that is worth talking about. And you guys have been great about expressing your opinions...so is this as big of a deal to you guys as it is to me?

Tags:

Follow the Discussion

  • DenginDengin

    Nice one, Tina.

    I was there when there was ArpaNet, and then Bitnet (was a moderator on Bitnet Relay, Wiki has an entry on that), and I used Gopher, and IRC, when it was brand new, and watched the Web grow to what it is today. It is preposterous to think that companies can control the flow information this way. Without the Internet, none of these companies would be nearly as successful as they are today, so this is how they repay us?

    Access to information is one thing, the way in which data flows should be untouchable. More emphasis should be placed on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data.

  • DenginDengin

    Nice one, Tina.

    I was there when there was ArpaNet, and then Bitnet (was a moderator on Bitnet Relay, Wiki has an entry on that), and I used Gopher, and IRC, when it was brand new, and watched the Web grow to what it is today. It is preposterous to think that companies can control the flow information this way. Without the Internet, none of these companies would be nearly as successful as they are today, so this is how they repay us?

    Access to information is one thing, the way in which data flows should be untouchable. More emphasis should be placed on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data.

  • Walter CrespoWalter Crespo

    I've heard that term used on Twit and recently on GeekBrief,  also RocketBoom, and now you.  I still don't really get it, I would like here more about it, ofcourse I could read up on it, but honestly I would prefer to listen to a good interview/discussion on this toppic.  So if you are thinking about doing a segment on Net Neutrality, I vote Yes and so do I, well the I's have it. : )

  • Walter CrespoWalter Crespo

    I've heard that term used on Twit and recently on GeekBrief,  also RocketBoom, and now you.  I still don't really get it, I would like here more about it, ofcourse I could read up on it, but honestly I would prefer to listen to a good interview/discussion on this toppic.  So if you are thinking about doing a segment on Net Neutrality, I vote Yes and so do I, well the I's have it. : )

  • Matthew MushallMatthew Mushall

    Fantastic topic, Tina.

    Forgive me if I can't help but equate this issue with exclusive game titles or monopolizing technology, but I feel many of these issues are an integral part of the free market and commercial economy.

    Sadly, I think net neutrality is on its way out.  I'm not happy about it, but I understand the system behind it.  We live in a society where almost everything revolves around the almighty dollar...or pound...or Euro...currency, so when there is an opportunity to make some money by controlling the media we access, companies are going to take advantage of it.

    While simply providing the service would be enough, why not control the media and exclude competition?  Great monopolies were built on the understanding that companies should buy up and control all aspects of an industry, not just provide the service or product.  We don't have to like it in order to understand the genius of it.

    We see new examples of Media control almost every day.  Take Google's recent purchase of YouTube for example.  In order to expand Google Video Search and ensure users are accessing Google content, Google bought up and now controls YouTube.  In order to control the PC software market, how many companies has Microsoft purchased?  Sometimes the results are good, but there are always negative implications.  On a somewhat relevant topic to your career, G4 was much better before Comcast bought the station and destroyed it.  Where was the Net Neutrality there?

    Exclusive content generates sales, so that's where companies are headed.  I would love to see an open market where we could control what aspects of a service we used, but its not going to happen. 

    V360 is absolutely right.  Imagine being able to choose what cable channels you received rather than buying expensive “packages” with hundreds of channels you never watch.  Imagine a computer Market where Mac and PC got along and could use each other’s software.  Imagine a world where I could actually surf the 10 website using the “Safari” web browser instead of having to use Firefox or IE.  Wouldn’t that be something?

    Until next time…great topics, my goddess.

  • Matthew MushallMatthew Mushall

    Fantastic topic, Tina.

    Forgive me if I can't help but equate this issue with exclusive game titles or monopolizing technology, but I feel many of these issues are an integral part of the free market and commercial economy.

    Sadly, I think net neutrality is on its way out.  I'm not happy about it, but I understand the system behind it.  We live in a society where almost everything revolves around the almighty dollar...or pound...or Euro...currency, so when there is an opportunity to make some money by controlling the media we access, companies are going to take advantage of it.

    While simply providing the service would be enough, why not control the media and exclude competition?  Great monopolies were built on the understanding that companies should buy up and control all aspects of an industry, not just provide the service or product.  We don't have to like it in order to understand the genius of it.

    We see new examples of Media control almost every day.  Take Google's recent purchase of YouTube for example.  In order to expand Google Video Search and ensure users are accessing Google content, Google bought up and now controls YouTube.  In order to control the PC software market, how many companies has Microsoft purchased?  Sometimes the results are good, but there are always negative implications.  On a somewhat relevant topic to your career, G4 was much better before Comcast bought the station and destroyed it.  Where was the Net Neutrality there?

    Exclusive content generates sales, so that's where companies are headed.  I would love to see an open market where we could control what aspects of a service we used, but its not going to happen. 

    V360 is absolutely right.  Imagine being able to choose what cable channels you received rather than buying expensive “packages” with hundreds of channels you never watch.  Imagine a computer Market where Mac and PC got along and could use each other’s software.  Imagine a world where I could actually surf the 10 website using the “Safari” web browser instead of having to use Firefox or IE.  Wouldn’t that be something?

    Until next time…great topics, my goddess.

  • Glad to hear you guys are passionate about this topic.  A lot of people are saying this is an issue over security and its not, its about money.  I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.  I don't want anybody to have control over which sites I can and can't access.  And I certainly don't want to have to pay extra beyond my fifty bucks a month just to browse anyway.  But I'm telling you...the internet is going to change.  There are too many wealthy people behind these initiatives.  The laws are still grey but eventually they will not be. 
  • ScottMcCScottMcC

    I know people consider The Daily Show to be a credible source of information and therefore form their very strong opinions from net neutrality jokes made by Jon Stewart (meaning those people are unlikely to change their minds about net neutrality no matter what), but consider this:

    Prior to the 1990s, the 'Net was only available to select researchers at major universities. Without the foundations laid 30 years ago by government grants and private donations to universities, there would be no Internet.

    It's also true that without the billions of dollars spent over the past 15 years by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, et al. employing the people to design and build out the tens of thousands of kilometers of interconnecting cables (sorry Ted, but it's NOT a "series of tubes") that serves not only as the high speed backbone but also the nerves connect our homes, dorms, etc., there is no Internet.

    Think about this logically:

    Disney is currently a partner with Sprint. Let's say in the next 18 months Disney wants to offer a service so all of their cartoons are available on the Internet in HD. A family in Kansas City with a Verizon DSL line wants to watch "Toy Story" using the new Disney on demand HD video service and clicks on the icon to start the movie. The movie is then instantly streamed directly to their house from the Disney servers at a Sprint colocation facility using a combination of the Sprint fiber optic connection to the family's Verizon DSL connection.

    Conspiracy theorists are busy trying to convince everyone that unless net neutrality laws are immediately enacted, Verizon will use nefarious technology to somehow extort money out of Disney and Sprint just so that family in KC can watch "Toy Story" on their DSL connection.

    That makes no logical or business sense. Why would the same people that already spent billions on building an interconnected network purposely cripple or block access to content that their consumers want? Our current anti-trust laws wouldn't allow that to happen and more importantly, individual consumers would get together and file a class-action lawsuit against companies that tried it.

    We don't have a lot of regulation on the Internet right now and that's why the Internet is so awesome. However, it's starting to show it's age now that we have services like Skype, Vonage, YouTube, etc. because the underlying information transport technology of the Internet was built with a 56K phone modem in mind, not high-speed cable or DSL or WiMax.

    A less-regulated Internet is better for all of us. With a net neutrality law, it would be illegal to develop and build new high-speed connections for customers that need them for new broadband services like real-time virtual reality games, long-distance robotic surgery, or on demand HD versions of On10.net vids in Windows Media Center.

    So unless there's some kind of secret conspiracy going on behind the scenes, nobody reading this long and boring post is going to wake up and find they can't use Google or watch YouTube tomorrow because there's no net neutrality law. What very well could happen with net neutrality laws is that we could all be stuck with an Internet that never gets any faster because there's no logical incentive to build out innovative transport technologies for the data. And who wants to risk a laggy Internet connection when they're having long-distance robotic surgery over the Internet if net neutrality laws force Internet providers to never update the same old technology that's been around since Al Gore invented it?

    Besides, when Google screams about how big money telecommunication companies would charge people more for certain services, it comes across as really hypocritical. Google is a big money company too! And Google got rich by charging jacked up "premium" prices for advertisers who want space at the top of hundreds of millions of Web pages. Google uses that business model because they know that it works for their business... So why are they lobbying for a law that makes it illegal for Comcast or Verizon to use a fair pricing model that works for their business?

    That makes as much sense as your dad telling you that you're forbidden from drinking while he's holding a tumbler full of scotch!

    I believe it's best to keep the Internet free... by liberating it from regulations!

  • ScottMcCScottMcC

    I know people consider The Daily Show to be a credible source of information and therefore form their very strong opinions from net neutrality jokes made by Jon Stewart (meaning those people are unlikely to change their minds about net neutrality no matter what), but consider this:

    Prior to the 1990s, the 'Net was only available to select researchers at major universities. Without the foundations laid 30 years ago by government grants and private donations to universities, there would be no Internet.

    It's also true that without the billions of dollars spent over the past 15 years by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, et al. employing the people to design and build out the tens of thousands of kilometers of interconnecting cables (sorry Ted, but it's NOT a "series of tubes") that serves not only as the high speed backbone but also the nerves connect our homes, dorms, etc., there is no Internet.

    Think about this logically:

    Disney is currently a partner with Sprint. Let's say in the next 18 months Disney wants to offer a service so all of their cartoons are available on the Internet in HD. A family in Kansas City with a Verizon DSL line wants to watch "Toy Story" using the new Disney on demand HD video service and clicks on the icon to start the movie. The movie is then instantly streamed directly to their house from the Disney servers at a Sprint colocation facility using a combination of the Sprint fiber optic connection to the family's Verizon DSL connection.

    Conspiracy theorists are busy trying to convince everyone that unless net neutrality laws are immediately enacted, Verizon will use nefarious technology to somehow extort money out of Disney and Sprint just so that family in KC can watch "Toy Story" on their DSL connection.

    That makes no logical or business sense. Why would the same people that already spent billions on building an interconnected network purposely cripple or block access to content that their consumers want? Our current anti-trust laws wouldn't allow that to happen and more importantly, individual consumers would get together and file a class-action lawsuit against companies that tried it.

    We don't have a lot of regulation on the Internet right now and that's why the Internet is so awesome. However, it's starting to show it's age now that we have services like Skype, Vonage, YouTube, etc. because the underlying information transport technology of the Internet was built with a 56K phone modem in mind, not high-speed cable or DSL or WiMax.

    A less-regulated Internet is better for all of us. With a net neutrality law, it would be illegal to develop and build new high-speed connections for customers that need them for new broadband services like real-time virtual reality games, long-distance robotic surgery, or on demand HD versions of On10.net vids in Windows Media Center.

    So unless there's some kind of secret conspiracy going on behind the scenes, nobody reading this long and boring post is going to wake up and find they can't use Google or watch YouTube tomorrow because there's no net neutrality law. What very well could happen with net neutrality laws is that we could all be stuck with an Internet that never gets any faster because there's no logical incentive to build out innovative transport technologies for the data. And who wants to risk a laggy Internet connection when they're having long-distance robotic surgery over the Internet if net neutrality laws force Internet providers to never update the same old technology that's been around since Al Gore invented it?

    Besides, when Google screams about how big money telecommunication companies would charge people more for certain services, it comes across as really hypocritical. Google is a big money company too! And Google got rich by charging jacked up "premium" prices for advertisers who want space at the top of hundreds of millions of Web pages. Google uses that business model because they know that it works for their business... So why are they lobbying for a law that makes it illegal for Comcast or Verizon to use a fair pricing model that works for their business?

    That makes as much sense as your dad telling you that you're forbidden from drinking while he's holding a tumbler full of scotch!

    I believe it's best to keep the Internet free... by liberating it from regulations!

  • Ted BracewellTed Bracewell

    Neo vs. Robocop owns.

  • Ted BracewellTed Bracewell

    Neo vs. Robocop owns.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Maybe I'm just a cold blooded businessman, but I don't understand the debate.  The physical aspects of the internet - the cables and servers and connections - were laid down as an investment by private companies.  It's a delivery mechanism.  Shouldn't the owners be able to charge by the amount they are delivering?  In the same way that a trucking company can charge by weight?

    There are people that own the hardware, and there are customers who pay to use it.  If the owners want to change their pricing system, isn't that their prerogative?  If you don't like it, don't pay to use their system. 

    Someone else posted an example of a user downloading a Disney cartoon in HD.  I liked that, but not his interpretation of it.  So there this tube (sorry, couldn't resist.) coming into town, and it's owned by Verizon.  Only so much can get through that particular tube at the same time.  If Disney or the Disney Watcher are willing to pay Verizon more for priority shipping...how can you argue with that?  It's Verizon's tube!  You're just some guy who wants free access to it.  Screw you - get your own tube.  Why should Verizon have to provide you with equal access?  You didn't pay for the tube, and now you're not willing to pay for the tube time that you use?  That's ridiculous - you're not involved in this transaction at all, you're just some guy with no money who wishes he had a tube.  Why don't we pass a law that says Verizon has to give us all free pizza and beer while we're at it?

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Maybe I'm just a cold blooded businessman, but I don't understand the debate.  The physical aspects of the internet - the cables and servers and connections - were laid down as an investment by private companies.  It's a delivery mechanism.  Shouldn't the owners be able to charge by the amount they are delivering?  In the same way that a trucking company can charge by weight?

    There are people that own the hardware, and there are customers who pay to use it.  If the owners want to change their pricing system, isn't that their prerogative?  If you don't like it, don't pay to use their system. 

    Someone else posted an example of a user downloading a Disney cartoon in HD.  I liked that, but not his interpretation of it.  So there this tube (sorry, couldn't resist.) coming into town, and it's owned by Verizon.  Only so much can get through that particular tube at the same time.  If Disney or the Disney Watcher are willing to pay Verizon more for priority shipping...how can you argue with that?  It's Verizon's tube!  You're just some guy who wants free access to it.  Screw you - get your own tube.  Why should Verizon have to provide you with equal access?  You didn't pay for the tube, and now you're not willing to pay for the tube time that you use?  That's ridiculous - you're not involved in this transaction at all, you're just some guy with no money who wishes he had a tube.  Why don't we pass a law that says Verizon has to give us all free pizza and beer while we're at it?

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Aw, thanks for the support - but we won't be able to convince anyone if we call them names.

    Net Neutrality SOUNDS like a good idea, because the proponents are slanting their arguments around the idea that someone else - big business! - is trying to take control of YOUR content!  How dare they!

    But of course they don't care about your content - you're trying to control their pipelines.  They don't care WHAT you use it for - if you're willing to pay the most, they'll be happy to rent it to you.  But it's their hardware, and they should have the right to rent it to the highest bidder.

    I think freight is a great analogy.   Perishables are shipped by plane; bricks are shipped by boat.  People are willing to pay more to ship the stuff that needs to be there right away - everything else travels as cheap as it can.  My e-mail to grandma can go by slow freight, but if I REALLY need to watch Lost in hi-def RIGHT NOW, Verizon is going to charge me extra for the bandwidth that takes up - bandwidth that isn't available for anyone else while I'm using it.

     

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Aw, thanks for the support - but we won't be able to convince anyone if we call them names.

    Net Neutrality SOUNDS like a good idea, because the proponents are slanting their arguments around the idea that someone else - big business! - is trying to take control of YOUR content!  How dare they!

    But of course they don't care about your content - you're trying to control their pipelines.  They don't care WHAT you use it for - if you're willing to pay the most, they'll be happy to rent it to you.  But it's their hardware, and they should have the right to rent it to the highest bidder.

    I think freight is a great analogy.   Perishables are shipped by plane; bricks are shipped by boat.  People are willing to pay more to ship the stuff that needs to be there right away - everything else travels as cheap as it can.  My e-mail to grandma can go by slow freight, but if I REALLY need to watch Lost in hi-def RIGHT NOW, Verizon is going to charge me extra for the bandwidth that takes up - bandwidth that isn't available for anyone else while I'm using it.

     

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Haha - didn't even notice that was a link.  Guess I'm in that 1/4th.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Haha - didn't even notice that was a link.  Guess I'm in that 1/4th.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    They're not trying to take over your content, they're not trying to "limit" your channel choices, and they're won't force you to watch certain shows.  And for that matter, it's not your damn content!  You're renting bandwidth from the people that own the equipment.  They simply want the ability to rent it out to someone who will pay more than you.  That's their right - it's their equipment.  Why should they have to make do with what you're willing to pay?

    I'm a delivery driver.  Some other guy will give me $20 to deliver his package, but you only want to pay $5.  Are you going to pass a law that says I have to try and do both at the same time for $5 each?  Gosh - I guess I should feel lucky that you're even willing to give me $5!  Thanks for not making me do it for free!

    I think what you WANT is  municipal internet architecture - paid for and maintained by taxpayers, who would naturally all have equal access to it.  That sounds great!  But you can't just sieze privately-held property to get it.  Start pushing for government investment in connectivity, but don't pretend it's OK to commandeer equipment that other people paid for.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    They're not trying to take over your content, they're not trying to "limit" your channel choices, and they're won't force you to watch certain shows.  And for that matter, it's not your damn content!  You're renting bandwidth from the people that own the equipment.  They simply want the ability to rent it out to someone who will pay more than you.  That's their right - it's their equipment.  Why should they have to make do with what you're willing to pay?

    I'm a delivery driver.  Some other guy will give me $20 to deliver his package, but you only want to pay $5.  Are you going to pass a law that says I have to try and do both at the same time for $5 each?  Gosh - I guess I should feel lucky that you're even willing to give me $5!  Thanks for not making me do it for free!

    I think what you WANT is  municipal internet architecture - paid for and maintained by taxpayers, who would naturally all have equal access to it.  That sounds great!  But you can't just sieze privately-held property to get it.  Start pushing for government investment in connectivity, but don't pretend it's OK to commandeer equipment that other people paid for.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    They don't control the flow of information, they just control the equipment that they paid for and installed.  They rent out bandwidth - and want to rent it to whoever will pay the most.  That's their right, because it's their pipes.

    The internet has been built by private companies.  Think if the national highway system was built by investors, instead of the government.  Would you be able to prevent the owners from charging tolls?  Not if it was their property and their equipment!  You don't have to like it, but you can't take that right away from them. 

    What you WANT is publically-owned bandwidth, but you can't just commandeer the equipment that other people have paid for.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    They don't control the flow of information, they just control the equipment that they paid for and installed.  They rent out bandwidth - and want to rent it to whoever will pay the most.  That's their right, because it's their pipes.

    The internet has been built by private companies.  Think if the national highway system was built by investors, instead of the government.  Would you be able to prevent the owners from charging tolls?  Not if it was their property and their equipment!  You don't have to like it, but you can't take that right away from them. 

    What you WANT is publically-owned bandwidth, but you can't just commandeer the equipment that other people have paid for.

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    Why stop at eliminating net neutrality?

    Think about the money that could be made in shopping malls...the biggest companies could not only get the biggest stores, but the easiest paths to them with no small little stores to draw your attention along the way, leaving those smaller stores to be at the end of some winding narrow hallway too small to accomodate two-way pedestrian traffic.  Forget this model that allows fairness to all stores by allowing smaller shops to set up nearby larger ones...

    I don't understand how people can think it's ok to let companies control how what you go and "get" on the web...the idea is just prepostorous to me.

    ISPs should stick to what they're good at...providing bandwidth to the internet and nothing more.

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    Why stop at eliminating net neutrality?

    Think about the money that could be made in shopping malls...the biggest companies could not only get the biggest stores, but the easiest paths to them with no small little stores to draw your attention along the way, leaving those smaller stores to be at the end of some winding narrow hallway too small to accomodate two-way pedestrian traffic.  Forget this model that allows fairness to all stores by allowing smaller shops to set up nearby larger ones...

    I don't understand how people can think it's ok to let companies control how what you go and "get" on the web...the idea is just prepostorous to me.

    ISPs should stick to what they're good at...providing bandwidth to the internet and nothing more.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    What?  Are you kidding?  You mean like RENT?  Your "crazy suggestion" was to charge higher rent for stores that are bigger, closer, and more convenient?  Well, I hate to break this to you...

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    What?  Are you kidding?  You mean like RENT?  Your "crazy suggestion" was to charge higher rent for stores that are bigger, closer, and more convenient?  Well, I hate to break this to you...

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    No, not rent.  If you go to a mall with the anchor stores, there are plenty of little shops, competitors or not, that are right next door or on the way.  You can go look at them as easily as you look at the anchor store, regardless of who pays more rent in the mall.  My fear is that eliminating Net Neutrality prevents this, so that you don't even get to see the little shops whether they are there or not.  I don't want anyone preventing me from finding what is out there, and eliminating Net Neutrality threatens to do just that.  What rent those stores pay isn't at all what I was referring to.

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    No, not rent.  If you go to a mall with the anchor stores, there are plenty of little shops, competitors or not, that are right next door or on the way.  You can go look at them as easily as you look at the anchor store, regardless of who pays more rent in the mall.  My fear is that eliminating Net Neutrality prevents this, so that you don't even get to see the little shops whether they are there or not.  I don't want anyone preventing me from finding what is out there, and eliminating Net Neutrality threatens to do just that.  What rent those stores pay isn't at all what I was referring to.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Sorry for being so sarcastic in my first reply. 

    You look at shopping malls and say that the biggest stores don't crowd out the little stores.  But of course that happens!  Even the little stores pay rent.  If a store isn't willing to pay rent, or is willing to pay less than everyone else, they don't get any space in the mall.  All those little stores you see?  Those are just the top-paying little stores...all the others didn't make the cut.

    You're demanding that the mall owners rent space for as little as you feel like paying, even though others are willing to pay more.  That's not "crowding out" your content, it's simply supply and demand. 

    Internet providers are private companies and have no obligation to provide universal access to all content.  They are bookstores, not libraries.  If no one will pay for a book, they have no obligation to stock it.  A library still does.

  • Barry HawkeyBarry Hawkey

    Sorry for being so sarcastic in my first reply. 

    You look at shopping malls and say that the biggest stores don't crowd out the little stores.  But of course that happens!  Even the little stores pay rent.  If a store isn't willing to pay rent, or is willing to pay less than everyone else, they don't get any space in the mall.  All those little stores you see?  Those are just the top-paying little stores...all the others didn't make the cut.

    You're demanding that the mall owners rent space for as little as you feel like paying, even though others are willing to pay more.  That's not "crowding out" your content, it's simply supply and demand. 

    Internet providers are private companies and have no obligation to provide universal access to all content.  They are bookstores, not libraries.  If no one will pay for a book, they have no obligation to stock it.  A library still does.

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    It's interesting that you should use the analogy of libraries and bookstores.

    Today internet service providers are providing library-like access to the content on the internet.  If internet service providers are to change into internet content providers, effectively becoming more like a bookstore, then how can people get library-like access to the content?  Eliminating Net Neutrality threatens to cut off that access.

    Frankly, I could care less if there were bookstores (internet content providers) around as long as I also have access to libraries (internet service providers).  My fear is that eliminating Net Neutrality will result in my library-like access to the internet going away (what's the good saying you can switch to another provider when no other providers are giving access to all content?), and I don't want that to ever happen.  The value that the internet content provides us is far too great.

    So I'll happy stay in the camp of those supporting Net Neutrality for now, and others who are willing to give up the freedoms they have because companies deserve to get greedier than they already are can sit in the other camp (which is mostly those who will make money off of eliminating Net Neutrality anyway).

  • Kirk MunroKirk Munro

    It's interesting that you should use the analogy of libraries and bookstores.

    Today internet service providers are providing library-like access to the content on the internet.  If internet service providers are to change into internet content providers, effectively becoming more like a bookstore, then how can people get library-like access to the content?  Eliminating Net Neutrality threatens to cut off that access.

    Frankly, I could care less if there were bookstores (internet content providers) around as long as I also have access to libraries (internet service providers).  My fear is that eliminating Net Neutrality will result in my library-like access to the internet going away (what's the good saying you can switch to another provider when no other providers are giving access to all content?), and I don't want that to ever happen.  The value that the internet content provides us is far too great.

    So I'll happy stay in the camp of those supporting Net Neutrality for now, and others who are willing to give up the freedoms they have because companies deserve to get greedier than they already are can sit in the other camp (which is mostly those who will make money off of eliminating Net Neutrality anyway).

Remove this comment

Remove this thread

close

Comments Closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.