I agree, people don't hear enough about this.

I agree, people don't hear enough about this.

I agree this issue doesn't get enough attention but for different reasons. I have to say that getting the government involved could be a double edged sword. Just look at the FCC and the harm they do in regulating TV and radio. Net Neutrality would be a nice idea in theory, but is it fair for those who own the bandwidth to have their property rights restricted? And Dave has a good point, if co's like Amazon, Google and Youtube use more they should pay more too. That's what they don't want to do becuase it would add costs to their business model, but hey that's the way a free market is supposed to work. Although this is a bit dated now, I think this discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation is really useful for those who are interested: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5578594

I agree this issue doesn't get enough attention but for different reasons. I have to say that getting the government involved could be a double edged sword. Just look at the FCC and the harm they do in regulating TV and radio. Net Neutrality would be a nice idea in theory, but is it fair for those who own the bandwidth to have their property rights restricted? And Dave has a good point, if co's like Amazon, Google and Youtube use more they should pay more too. That's what they don't want to do becuase it would add costs to their business model, but hey that's the way a free market is supposed to work.

Although this is a bit dated now, I think this discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation is really useful for those who are interested:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5578594

mabye i'm not wrapping my head around this right... when you build a site, like politicalbase.com, you pay for the bandwidth because your hosting company (i.e. dreamhost) paid for the bandwidth. google, yahoo, etc. pay for their bandwidth because their servers have to be connected somewhere, so they pay someone like AT&T. the end user, me, pays comcast for my bandwidth. where's the problem? why does anyone want to change things unless "they" want more money?

mabye i'm not wrapping my head around this right...

when you build a site, like politicalbase.com, you pay for the bandwidth because your hosting company (i.e. dreamhost) paid for the bandwidth.

google, yahoo, etc. pay for their bandwidth because their servers have to be connected somewhere, so they pay someone like AT&T.

the end user, me, pays comcast for my bandwidth.

where's the problem? why does anyone want to change things unless "they" want more money?

Without net neutrality, ISPs will have the power to censor what content you're able to see. This means that an ISP could create a similar service to one you love (i.e. Google, Yahoo) and limit your access to any but they're own . This is an unfair advantage and would certainly disincline small businesses from inventing creative ways to revolutionize the internet like has been done by companies like Google. This could even involve blocking of social networking sites and the like. They want to extract, or what I consider blackmail these companies to pay for premium services and create a two tiered internet where companies with a larger wallet will be on the "good" and fast internet, and smaller, non financially established companies would have to travel down the old dirt road, crushing innovation and eliminating the competition that has flourished the internet and created hundreds of thousands of new companies. Lets take a web site like www.skype.com for instance. Skype is a little downloadable program for making free calls over the internet to anyone else who also has Skype. All calls from Skype to land lines and mobiles within the US and Canada are also free. Imagine how much this is costing the phone companies when consumers begin using these types of services rather than the traditional phone lines to connect with family and friends. What a wonderful creation, born by innovation and the freedom of the Internet. Let's help to ensure neutrality by contacting our congressmen and telling our friends to help us. Without our action, the internet as we know it could be lost forever. The place where free thinkers, radicals, and revolutionaries can be heard uncensored is in danger of being lost.

Without net neutrality, ISPs will have the power to censor what content you're able to see. This means that an ISP could create a similar service to one you love (i.e. Google, Yahoo) and limit your access to any but they're own . This is an unfair advantage and would certainly disincline small businesses from inventing creative ways to revolutionize the internet like has been done by companies like Google. This could even involve blocking of social networking sites and the like. They want to extract, or what I consider blackmail these companies to pay for premium services and create a two tiered internet where companies with a larger wallet will be on the "good" and fast internet, and smaller, non financially established companies would have to travel down the old dirt road, crushing innovation and eliminating the competition that has flourished the internet and created hundreds of thousands of new companies. Lets take a web site like www.skype.com for instance. Skype is a little downloadable program for making free calls over the internet to anyone else who also has Skype. All calls from Skype to land lines and mobiles within the US and Canada are also free. Imagine how much this is costing the phone companies when consumers begin using these types of services rather than the traditional phone lines to connect with family and friends. What a wonderful creation, born by innovation and the freedom of the Internet. Let's help to ensure neutrality by contacting our congressmen and telling our friends to help us. Without our action, the internet as we know it could be lost forever. The place where free thinkers, radicals, and revolutionaries can be heard uncensored is in danger of being lost.

I think one of the big issues with net neutrality education is the quagmire of deception that's spilled out around it. Maintaining an open, uncensored forum for public information is vital for the future of Web 2.0 Ultimately though, it's important that net neutrality be discussed in everyday terms that the public at large can relate too, it's all too quickly being absorbed into a political-centric world that obscures the real-life impact the issue will have on people across the US, and world.

I think one of the big issues with net neutrality education is the quagmire of deception that's spilled out around it. Maintaining an open, uncensored forum for public information is vital for the future of Web 2.0 Ultimately though, it's important that net neutrality be discussed in everyday terms that the public at large can relate too, it's all too quickly being absorbed into a political-centric world that obscures the real-life impact the issue will have on people across the US, and world.

Companies already pay based on bandwidth. Net neutrality is about stopping backbone companies from charging people again. Charging content providers not only for bandwidth, but charging them so their packets are not given low priority in the network, and low priority means a sluggish site and poor user experience. This is not an issue of internet censorship, it's not about controlling information at all, although net neutrality does provide an opportunity to make censorship by backbone providers illegal, it is not really the basis of the issue. It's about a mafia like business tactic backbone companies want to use. 'Hey google you have a pot of money, you don't want anything to delay your packets do you, you better give us some money' But such an policy impacts innovation and start ups the most, it adds cost to heavy bandwidth users, it discourages the youtubes and google earths of tomorrow not to mention adds difficulties in allowing competitors of major sites to develop. It actually harms the openness and competitiveness of doing business on the internet, it's bad for the free market to allow backbone companies to distort the market like this. As internet gets faster, people are going to have to figure out what to do with the speed. But in turn, internet users and internet sites are going to want to do more with the internet and more infrastructure has to be built. But Backbone companies don't like this at all, progress is a bad thing to them. Build the internet of tomorrow? Doesn't that sound expensive? Lets just add costs to heavy bandwidth users to discourage those vile innovators instead of building more network capacity. That'll save us money, great idea!

Companies already pay based on bandwidth. Net neutrality is about stopping backbone companies from charging people again. Charging content providers not only for bandwidth, but charging them so their packets are not given low priority in the network, and low priority means a sluggish site and poor user experience.

This is not an issue of internet censorship, it's not about controlling information at all, although net neutrality does provide an opportunity to make censorship by backbone providers illegal, it is not really the basis of the issue.

It's about a mafia like business tactic backbone companies want to use. 'Hey google you have a pot of money, you don't want anything to delay your packets do you, you better give us some money'

But such an policy impacts innovation and start ups the most, it adds cost to heavy bandwidth users, it discourages the youtubes and google earths of tomorrow not to mention adds difficulties in allowing competitors of major sites to develop. It actually harms the openness and competitiveness of doing business on the internet, it's bad for the free market to allow backbone companies to distort the market like this.

As internet gets faster, people are going to have to figure out what to do with the speed. But in turn, internet users and internet sites are going to want to do more with the internet and more infrastructure has to be built. But Backbone companies don't like this at all, progress is a bad thing to them. Build the internet of tomorrow? Doesn't that sound expensive? Lets just add costs to heavy bandwidth users to discourage those vile innovators instead of building more network capacity. That'll save us money, great idea!

I think the world is based on peace and love. And peace is not possible without net neutrality, and i defend for this for love (wink wink). I am a noobie so teach me ::wink wink::

I think the world is based on peace and love. And peace is not possible without net neutrality, and i defend for this for love (wink wink). I am a noobie so teach me ::wink wink::

I very much agree that net neutrality must be preserved. The fundamental appeal of the internet is the vast network of free (or cheap) information and communication. We are all equal online, and can see what we want, do what we want, say what we want, and talk to whom we please. This movement against net neutrality may not be a direct act of censorship, however, as in many aspects of life, it's the little things that will get us from where we least expect it. By limiting bandwidth usage and demanding money for network priority, these companies will filter out those who cannot pay, or those who will not pay. I don't think that big companies like youtube are really an issue here. While they may want to not pay additional costs, as a large and very profitable company, they have the money to do so, if need be. What is at stake here is the startups, and the little people like us. What good is the information or services we have to give if we have to pay even more just to share it? What of those who do not have the resources to do so? As I stated, in the end, the big companies win because they have more money or they make more money as a result of this issue. We are the ones who will be affected the most, and so we must be the ones to affect the changes we want the most. We must fight for what we believe in and preserve the freedoms we have.

I very much agree that net neutrality must be preserved. The fundamental appeal of the internet is the vast network of free (or cheap) information and communication. We are all equal online, and can see what we want, do what we want, say what we want, and talk to whom we please. This movement against net neutrality may not be a direct act of censorship, however, as in many aspects of life, it's the little things that will get us from where we least expect it. By limiting bandwidth usage and demanding money for network priority, these companies will filter out those who cannot pay, or those who will not pay. I don't think that big companies like youtube are really an issue here. While they may want to not pay additional costs, as a large and very profitable company, they have the money to do so, if need be. What is at stake here is the startups, and the little people like us. What good is the information or services we have to give if we have to pay even more just to share it? What of those who do not have the resources to do so?

As I stated, in the end, the big companies win because they have more money or they make more money as a result of this issue. We are the ones who will be affected the most, and so we must be the ones to affect the changes we want the most. We must fight for what we believe in and preserve the freedoms we have.