[INTERNET] Should the Internet become neutral? (25)

1 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-14 20:27 ID:WfnGVALe This thread was merged from the former /debate/ board. You can view the archive here.

A bunch of scumbags (Verizon, AssholesOnLine/TimeWarner, etc) want to run the show their fucking way? Yeah, right?

Or is it really scaremongery?


2 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-15 08:02 ID:WHLwyMDp

What are you talking about?

3 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-15 08:17 ID:Heaven

possibly ISP-enforced censorship

4 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-22 01:23 ID:Heaven

Network provider starts acting like a network provider. I'd say "Film at 11" here, but that seems really kind of redundant.

5 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-24 00:14 ID:GFBd7XWi

There is no way any single government or commercial entity(s)should be allowed to control the internet. This only leads to censorship and propaganda. Just look at the state of the american media.

6 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-29 16:52 ID:dF7gCRqd

It's not ISP enforced censorship. The 'fast lane' analogy is pretty good. The ISPs want Google, Yahoo, etc to pay them extra to get priority on their networks.

The failing of the 'fast lane' analogy is that it's not like people in the 'fast lane' on a highway slow down the people in the 'slow lane'. In terms of network infrastructure it's more like cutting in line.

All of the information flowing through an ISPs network ends up in queues/lines when they reach routers and switches. What the ISPs want to implement is a system that lets Google, Yahoo, etc pay them extra money to cut to the front of the line. The problem with this is it causes other information waiting in line to wait longer while the 'faster' information is passed on through.

7 Name: Citizen : 2006-06-29 16:57 ID:dF7gCRqd

The other problem is once they have the systems in place to inspect all of the information flowing through their network, they can then 'restrict' things like VOIP calls (Skype, Vonage, etc) or slow them down while the ISP's own VOIP service isn't slowed down. It's not like they would publicly announce such things, and even if they were brought to court over it, it would be hard to prove that they did such a thing without specific internal memos saying "We are going to do this."

Basically it would put the ISPs in a better position with better technology to allow them to censor things. It's not like they would publicly say they are censoring, or that they would even collaborate with other ISPs on what to censor. It's that they would censor things that it was in their business interests to censor and they could do it with impunity to some extent due to the high barriers of entry into becoming your own ISP.

8 Name: Citizen : 2006-07-09 22:28 ID:Glti0njI

as posted in /net/:

> a friend in the business says it won't happen, because the moment the ISPs start screwing with load times or website accessibility, they'll lose their status as a neutral carrier.
> hello RIAA and other copyright lawsuits in the bag. not to mention the FBI probing them for CP.

9 Name: Amarok : 2006-07-10 04:44 ID:oA6uDDQp

How would continuing neutrality require government intervention on how content is delivered?

10 Name: Citizen : 2006-07-11 00:27 ID:Heaven


Because the big players want to do away with neutrality to make more money?

11 Name: Mich The Weird : 2006-07-18 20:07 ID:EDcJjSxh

The news ain't neutral. Trust me.

12 Name: 月岡 : 2006-07-30 06:41 ID:8vp/rvgc

These corporations think they've discovered a new, amazing way to make money, but you know what's strange? ENRON (remember them?) were one of the first companies that wanted to do something like this. Of course, they were a group of cold blooded sickos who's actions caused the ruining of many lives. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

13 Name: Citizen : 2006-10-05 17:55 ID:MOs6cZmr


I've heard about them. Wasn't it about some kind of conspiracy back in '01?

14 Name: Citizen : 2006-10-05 20:08 ID:Heaven

> ENRON (remember them?) were one of the first companies that wanted to do something like this.

I highly doubt it, Enron wasn't remotely connected to the Internet service business.

15 Name: Citizen : 2006-10-06 02:28 ID:TGWovnPt

I think he meant preferential treatment in who would get energy from Enron. Pay more and the lights stay on, don't pay and suffer with the rest during a brown-out.

16 Name: Citizen : 2006-11-06 12:46 ID:LoTomzZJ

17 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2008-11-28 20:11 ID:dwI0yZ9Y

I like how the internet is neutral, but at the same time... maybe some form of censorship is needed.. there is a lot of stuff out there (like internet suicide sites) that don't really help people who are weak or are in trouble. But this is quite the unpopular view.

18 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2008-11-29 22:11 ID:4/zMPVeI

But who could decide what is acceptable or not acceptable? Giving such power to a government guarantees that the first thing they will do will be to declare political criticism of itself to be unacceptable and illegal.

19 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2008-12-28 06:56 ID:U9NUZb3p

You can't help everyone. You can't control every action of a population no matter how hard you try. If you wish to help people with suicide problems, actually HELP them. Enforcing a blackout only encourages interest in the subject rather than making it go away, it's been shown to happen time and time again on various topics in various cultures.

20 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-12-06 05:44 ID:BwJ74Fnj

Net neutrality just isn't a realistic idea. It ignores pre-existing power structures and tendencies towards emergent order

We're living in what might be likened to the "wild west" era of the internet: settling the wilderness and building it up to be something recognizable. For a while the anarchy was permissible because the region was marginal. As it grows increasingly more popular however, there is going to be a natural movement towards protection of interests as mass society goes digital. We can see this happening with corporate interests right now, but the same logic can be applied to essentially everyone given the intrinsic vulnerability of net assets to disruption. State authorities are going to be naturally pulled towards a system of routine enforcement to minimize these risks. Anonymous and kin might pride itself at striking against established authorities, but all it is doing is sowing the seeds of it's own demise.

That said, I think we should recognize the internet has certain intrinsic limitations on what can be done to enforce standardization. There is always going to be a fundamental gap between online and real life identities, as well as a disconnect between transition from online to reality. Skilled hackers are probably still going to have a place breaking into the system by exploiting this

21 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-12-25 20:54 ID:5i89r9pw

I think the fact that the 'net was worked more or less fine for decades proves that, yes, we can get by without some invasive laws or central authority.

22 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-12-26 20:32 ID:IxtoT6tz

I hate it when people answer questions like this. You're not thinking about the processes involved in politics

23 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2013-01-08 20:07 ID:EClRiTFN


24 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2013-02-06 13:58 ID:JOP0tW1G

actually i think if the web gets too heavily controlled for the general net-populaces comfort, a lot of people may migrate to the deep web. i mean a lot of people already have, and they have some growing communities in there. maybe its...ALREADY happening?

25 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2014-03-21 09:13 ID:KoRCG4h4

I think decentralized networks will pick up a lot of steam in the coming years.
However, unless true end-to-end encryption becomes a lot more easy to use, most people won't bother.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...