Post a new topic
    2 Replies Latest reply on Feb 25, 2015 1:49 PM by seoservicepro

    Defining Net neutrality Without The Political Mumbo Jumbo

    seoservicepro Ranger

      There are way too many special interest groups and politicians telling you what net neutrality is and what it will do, etc. etc. There is more than one definition and you should make up your own mind from the real information without an agenda behind it. Click the image to enlarge it.

       

      net-neutrality-defined.jpeg

        • Re: Defining Net neutrality Without The Political Mumbo Jumbo
          Henry Scout

          Those were different perspective on net neutrality. However, if you look at the picture it is impossible to set aside politics in net neutrality since most of the time the influence from prominent people whether politician or in business sector is unavoidable.

            • Re: Defining Net neutrality Without The Political Mumbo Jumbo
              Moderator Jim Ranger

              Probably one of the most divisive subjects in front of Congress right now. Luckily, we're never divisive here.

               

              Jim

              • Re: Defining Net neutrality Without The Political Mumbo Jumbo
                seoservicepro Ranger

                Thanks for reading and commenting Henry and Jim. It is an important issue. My attempt here is to give the different points of view. Most discussions are about whether the FCC should adopt the current bill, which is not really the definition of net neutrality.

                 

                The rules that would be included, at least those made public, aren't so bad in my opinion. They would fall under the 2nd definition in the infographic. All information providers being treated equally, but not every bit of data being treated the same since some are time-sensitive like voice.

                 

                On the ISOC mailing list, one of the members made a good analogy.

                 

                You and others are shopping at a grocery store. There are a lot of customers with large carts waiting in line to check out. If someone has a only a few items, people might be willing to let them cut in line since it won't affect their wait time very much.

                 

                An Express lane is just an alternative to such courtesy which people are willing to accept.

                If this happens too often, people will complain: in 91.3% of the cases people will object if just two people cut in line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_in_line).


                 

                But the case of audio or video packets is just the opposite.


                You have many people with few items waiting on a line, and someone else comes in with a large cart, i.e. someone with a special speed requirement like plenty of real-time packets.


                If the supermarket opened a special lane where items are checked out much faster, while on the other lane they keep being checked out slowly, people will be upset and even more so if the Express lane slows down the other lines.

                 

                That is exactly where Net Neutrality comes in: you want fair treatment for all.


                You don't want someone to get a special treatment especially if that negatively affects you.


                If the supermarket can check out items fast by adding a cashier, that should benefit everyone, not only for some special few.


                I like the example, but some experts say that right now, "faster" isn't possible. Only "slower". So rather than companies being able to pay for a fast lane, non-payers would be moved into the slow lane. The new FCC rules would ban providers from "throttling" anyone in order to sell different levels of Internet to just those willing to pay.


                So, as I understand it, the providers want to sell the Internet we already have to those willing to pay for it and move everyone else to the back of the line.