Do you care about Net Neutrality? What are your thoughts on it?

(free as in freedom, not as in beer)

they can charge ppl to use their pipes, but they can't decide whether the water should run fast or be cleaner or prioritise Brand A water ??? something like that?? and if someone's putting poison into the water supply you go and arrest them and stop it, or if someones stealing water you go deal with them. water water everywhere.

slippery slope fallacy maybe, but i could imagine a time where your connection is owned by a subsidary of google or microsoft and it only lets you access the internet on android or windows. that'd suck.

@ArthurM Your right, it could lead to a time where microsoft has control over website access. And they should have the right to do that. They can do what they want. But yes it would be awful. And since it would be so terrible nobody would by into it, so it wouldn't be sustainable. That's capitalism. The water theory is interesting. While there should be regulations about poisoning water, thst's not comparable to the internet. Like I said it would make more sense if the government own the lines and leased them out.

monopolies tho

@ArthurM The government leasing the lines would prevent monoploies because it would mean that their time to use the lines is limited and dependant on them making money. Any other company is free to pay more and lease the lines themselves. This should be a more state level thing though, or even city/county level.m

yeah, that'd be a good plan. i forget what system we have in uk tbh. british telecom used to be government - it was spun off from the post office. they own? the phone lines and then later the broadband lines, but ppl don't have to choose bt for phone or net or tv. hmm i should probably look it up sometime.

I read Roaming commenting somewhere (I forget where) that Net Neutrality isn't a topic she's interested in covering, so we're unlikely to get a video on it from her. Which, frankly, is good if she really doesn't like the topic, because people don't make entertaining videos about subjects they dislike, as a general rule. As for me, I'm opposed to government regulation under nearly all circumstances. And the new Net Neutrality (really Net Command-And-Control) rules that started being implemented under Obama and were intended to push into ever more draconian ways of ensuring that everything was treated "fairly" (according to a bunch of biased government bureaucrats with their own agendas) would be horrible. Honestly, I'd love to see the government pulled out entirely, but I confess that there are some areas that I'm not sure how we'd privatize without it becoming a snarl. Primarily the EM spectrum we use for all wireless communication. If there isn't somebody who can say, "No, really, I own the right to broadcast on 102.5 MHz FM bandwidth in the city of St. Louis," we might well see honest businessmen and women who would negotiate such things between themselves on the basis that none want to have their comms garbled to unprofitable uselessness........but what would we do about mischief-makers who just want to disrupt things? Without legal rights to exclusively broadcast on that channel, Bob's Radio Shack could set up a white noise antenna to interfere with the radio station and nobody could say he's doing something illegal, since he has as much legal right to blot out that channel as anybody else does to use said channel. It's similar to the problems of IP, and how we determine where the government really should be establishing "you can own rights to this." We don't have the millenia of human history that physical property gives us to guide us. But ideally, we could find a way to do it with minimal government intervention.

@Segev The RF spectrum isn't part of net neutrality though. Plus since it is something that is publically broadcast in the air, it makes sense that it's governmet regulated. But if it wasn't we would invent things to improve it. For example, computers all use the same 2.4ghz or 5.0ghz bands in the same local are, but they don't interfere with each other due too MAC adresses and such.


@Armadillo, you are quite correct that it isn't part of net neutrality. I was wandering a bit afield there in my musings.