Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Republicans pushing against Net Neutrality

Martian · 09-22-2009, 05:28 PM

Your problem, The_Dunedan, is that you're confusing or conflating servers with networks, when they are two very distinct things.

Content providers and service providers are not necessarily the same people. They can be, but in the vast majority of cases are not.

Halx is a content provider. It's all well and good to say what he could or could not (or should or should not) do if he were an ISP, except TFP isn't an ISP. It never was, and never will be. Halx is a content provider, and has every right to decide what sort of content he wants to provide. The company that Halx (or more probably his hosting company) buys their bandwidth from is a service provider, and without regulations in place to uphold net neutrality they could do things like cause TFP to cease to exist, or impose a subscription model for traffic going there, thus forcing you to pay to access it. These are Bad things, they do not promote liberty, and it's within everyone's best interest to ensure they don't happen.

The network is, as has been suggested, analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about service providers allowing people to use those roads without restricting where they're able to go.

And before you gripe on about free access or anything like that, it's important to note that free in this case refers to free as in speech (libre) and not free as in beer (gratuit). Through the system of transit and peering, ISP's are already compensated for allowing traffic across their network, either in the form of actual payment or in an exchange of services. These deals do occasionally break down and can cause large segments of the internet to simply break.

Many of the advances that we take for granted over the last 15 years or so have taken advantage of or even relied entirely upon the free and open exchange of information. It behooves us to make sure that this trend continues, and that's precisely what net neutrality is all about.

EDIT - I don't know where you get this notion from that users can 'vote with their wallet,' but it's simply not true. The problem here is that in a lot of cases traffic only passes through a handful of providers. If all of those providers are restricting their transit in various ways, you end up with an oligopoly and a segmented internet. I should hope you could see why this is a Bad Thing.

Yes, the transit providers bought their own routers and switches, and in many cases paid to run their own cables. Those cables are frequently run through or over public property, and those companies are given right of way. They were and are able to exist and function on the sufferance of the people, often making direct and extensive use of land owned collectively by them. In exchange for this, the government can and should request that they continue to act in good faith and not adopt policies that go against the best interest of those people.

09-22-2009, 05:28 PM	#16 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Your problem, The_Dunedan, is that you're confusing or conflating servers with networks, when they are two very distinct things. Content providers and service providers are not necessarily the same people. They can be, but in the vast majority of cases are not. Halx is a content provider. It's all well and good to say what he could or could not (or should or should not) do if he were an ISP, except TFP isn't an ISP. It never was, and never will be. Halx is a content provider, and has every right to decide what sort of content he wants to provide. The company that Halx (or more probably his hosting company) buys their bandwidth from is a service provider, and without regulations in place to uphold net neutrality they could do things like cause TFP to cease to exist, or impose a subscription model for traffic going there, thus forcing you to pay to access it. These are Bad things, they do not promote liberty, and it's within everyone's best interest to ensure they don't happen. The network is, as has been suggested, analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about service providers allowing people to use those roads without restricting where they're able to go. And before you gripe on about free access or anything like that, it's important to note that free in this case refers to free as in speech (libre) and not free as in beer (gratuit). Through the system of transit and peering, ISP's are already compensated for allowing traffic across their network, either in the form of actual payment or in an exchange of services. These deals do occasionally break down and can cause large segments of the internet to simply break. Many of the advances that we take for granted over the last 15 years or so have taken advantage of or even relied entirely upon the free and open exchange of information. It behooves us to make sure that this trend continues, and that's precisely what net neutrality is all about. EDIT - I don't know where you get this notion from that users can 'vote with their wallet,' but it's simply not true. The problem here is that in a lot of cases traffic only passes through a handful of providers. If all of those providers are restricting their transit in various ways, you end up with an oligopoly and a segmented internet. I should hope you could see why this is a Bad Thing. Yes, the transit providers bought their own routers and switches, and in many cases paid to run their own cables. Those cables are frequently run through or over public property, and those companies are given right of way. They were and are able to exist and function on the sufferance of the people, often making direct and extensive use of land owned collectively by them. In exchange for this, the government can and should request that they continue to act in good faith and not adopt policies that go against the best interest of those people. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame Last edited by Martian; 09-22-2009 at 05:36 PM..