To save the Internet, don’t we have to let the people who run it (like the ISPs) tweak it for proper operation? Like giving BitTorrent traffic lower priority if necessary?
Colin Henderson
· 2 years ago
In fairness to the telco’s they paid for the pipes that the internet runs on. They did that expecting to charge for services. If we push this argument too far, the government would take over internet; is that better? What if its the French Government – we all have to learn French, and praise Chirac.
This descirbes well the work and the people behind internet infrastructure.
I would suggest its less Road Neutrality, than it is language neutrality. Consider … no-one tells David Crow what language he should rant in, any more than I may rant in Scottish if it makes me feel better.
I am ok with the telco’s charging for access, and the the market dynamics should determine that price, more than government regulation. But they cannot tell me what I should look at or how I should use internet.
To me thats what net-neutrality should be … freedom to access/ use/ anything I want, just as industrial age people were permitted to converse in any way they saw fit, whether it be hand signals, bearing gifts, or words.
David Crow
· 2 years ago
Charging for services is not what I'm against. Charging two different entities for the same service is what I'm against.
I pay for a connection to access content. Youtoogle pays for a connection to serve content. Should Youtoogle have to pay again to for customers on Bell or AT&T or other major telco? This is basically the telco determining what you can view. If Youtoogle doesn't want to pay the telco tax then you don't see that content. Look at the telcos and their access to wireless data, we accept that Telus keeps a walled garden to keep out "unsavory" wireless videos, sites, etc. from their customers. I don't want these corporations determining what I can see. What if Rogers only allowed you to see Yahoo!? What if they blocked Google, AOL, MSN/Sympatico/Live? Is this acceptable?
Colin Henderson
· 2 years ago
Absolutely .. they should not be able to limit what we see/ access/ use online.
All Comments
To save the Internet, don’t we have to let the people who run it (like the ISPs) tweak it for proper operation? Like giving BitTorrent traffic lower priority if necessary?
In fairness to the telco’s they paid for the pipes that the internet runs on. They did that expecting to charge for services. If we push this argument too far, the government would take over internet; is that better? What if its the French Government – we all have to learn French, and praise Chirac.
This descirbes well the work and the people behind internet infrastructure.
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html
" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.htmlI would suggest its less Road Neutrality, than it is language neutrality. Consider … no-one tells David Crow what language he should rant in, any more than I may rant in Scottish if it makes me feel better.
I am ok with the telco’s charging for access, and the the market dynamics should determine that price, more than government regulation. But they cannot tell me what I should look at or how I should use internet.
To me thats what net-neutrality should be … freedom to access/ use/ anything I want, just as industrial age people were permitted to converse in any way they saw fit, whether it be hand signals, bearing gifts, or words.
Charging for services is not what I'm against. Charging two different entities for the same service is what I'm against.
I pay for a connection to access content. Youtoogle pays for a connection to serve content. Should Youtoogle have to pay again to for customers on Bell or AT&T or other major telco? This is basically the telco determining what you can view. If Youtoogle doesn't want to pay the telco tax then you don't see that content. Look at the telcos and their access to wireless data, we accept that Telus keeps a walled garden to keep out "unsavory" wireless videos, sites, etc. from their customers. I don't want these corporations determining what I can see. What if Rogers only allowed you to see Yahoo!? What if they blocked Google, AOL, MSN/Sympatico/Live? Is this acceptable?
Absolutely .. they should not be able to limit what we see/ access/ use online.