21 Comments to “Net Neutrality 5-01-2006”

1. May 1st, 2006 at 7:08 am
   Martin said

   Hey Liz,

   Firstly, a heads-up: I’ve started up SmallOfficeHerald.com to take over from my previous blogs.

   But more importantly, I’m trying to do my small bit with the net neutrality issue - I have set up a “Special Feature’ page at my blog on the issue.

   I know that we all get inundated with information overload on such an issue that we may tend to tune out. My focus is to try and say it simply as possible and keep adding tidbits so that readers can get a snapshot of the current situation.

   Save the Internet, Liz. Let’s Do it!

2. May 1st, 2006 at 7:16 am
   ME Strauss said

   Hi Martin,
   SmallOficeHerald sounds like a winner! I’m with you on that. I’m looking now for the pithy comments that say something compelling.

   We’ll at least keep the idea at the forefront.

   Liz

3. May 1st, 2006 at 7:23 am
   Martin said

   Thanks.

   Basically it’s gone from HomeOfficeVoice > SmallOfficeMedia > SmallOfficeHerald … and I’m going to stick with this one for the long term and build it into something B I G or fall flat on my facev trying…

   btw, I’ve done my blogtipping (I didn’t do you this time round, that would be too obvious), where’s yours ? :-)

4. May 1st, 2006 at 7:53 am
   ME Strauss said

   Thanks for the reminder, I’ve got about 15 minutes to get my act together , , , that’s tine enough, Don’t you think?

5. May 1st, 2006 at 8:12 am
   Martin said

   15 minutes - I’m sure you can manage that…

   Go, Liz, Go!

6. May 1st, 2006 at 8:16 am
   ME Strauss said

   I’m pedaling as fast as I can. :)

7. May 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
   MR said

   Congress has absolutely zero business getting involved in how the internet functions. Whether you “follow the money” as in the first excerpt above or simply see the absurdity of any proposed changes a la the toaster analogy, one thing is clear: the web should remain a free frontier for all.

8. May 1st, 2006 at 8:21 pm
   ME Strauss said

   I agree MR. That’s why I’m posting these excerpts, So that we all can be aware of what’s really happening,

9. May 4th, 2006 at 10:39 am
   pkp646 said

   I know that the effort is supposed to save the internet, but as far as I can tell government regulation only ruins and breaks things, especially when they are not broken. I say keep the government out of this one.

10. May 4th, 2006 at 10:41 am
    Stevens said

    The real scoop on net neutrality is that it is not really a problem. What I mean is that no one is violating it. Not a single ISP, and none of them will. It would just be bad for business if they did.

11. May 4th, 2006 at 10:43 am
    ME Strauss said

    I hear what you’re saying pkp646. The govt. intervention scares me too. I just don’t like the idea of ANYONE getting to pick. But what’s to do?

12. May 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am
    ME Strauss said

    Stevens,
    I don’t know that anyone can say that no one will. I’t’s just not something that you can predict.

13. May 4th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
    Martin said

    Stevens,

    Yes, it’s not a problem now … but there’s clear messages coming from the Telco’s that they want this - the proof of this and why it’s a real scoop is the blatant lobbying to exclude Net Neutrality.

    In their eyes it’s purely a business thing: we lay out and own the pipes and copper and now we want to sell access to it. And as always, the biggest bidder wins.

    No one’s saying we’ll be all wiped off the internet but I can easily see a scenario where access will be throttled say 30% and if you want full access here’s our prices … and tough luck if you can’t afford it.

    But that’s business and sometimes (and who ever like Gov intervention) Government has to step in.

14. May 4th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Thanks Martin.

    What you say is so true. In their eyes it’s purely a business thing: we lay out and own the pipes and copper and now we want to sell access to it. And as always, the biggest bidder wins.

    Thanks for saying it so clearly. That is exactly my worry.

15. May 7th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
    keepitfree said

    First of all, I think we should assuage ourselves of the notion that the Internet can be perfect. In order for it to move forward, companies must be able to profit from it, or our Internet experience will remain stagnant. Fortunately, as consumers, we have veto power over the means by which companies make money in a free market system. In a government regulated system, well, no dice.

16. May 7th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
    ME Strauss said

    I think most of us agree that folks need to make money to keep the pipes running. Personally, I don’t want any system that puts the power in the hands of too few.

17. May 8th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
    jeran said

    Martin,

    The telcos’ goal (other than to maximize profit) isn’t to reduce quality for people who pay the standard rate, it’s to offer better quality for those willing to pay higher rates. The plan has never been to cut the current allocated bandwidth, and such an effort would never get past consumers. What’s the harm in a 30% differential between the highest and lowest service levels if the end result is a baseline 2-3 times as fast as today’s? If we allow the government to wrap its fingers around the internet, all we’ll do is stifle growth.

18. May 9th, 2006 at 6:01 am
    ME Strauss said

    Hi Jeran,
    I have no love for big government. I have no love for AT&T either. I’ve had their “service” for three different homes and swore I never would again. What happens? I love SBC and AT&T buys them. Within minutes my bill is a problem. I already have $70 in dispute that’s been in dispute for 4 months. Their mistake–my problem.

    There is a reason I trust the telcos as little as I trust big goverment. I don’t want either to get to pick.

19. May 9th, 2006 at 6:24 am
    Martin said

    Jeran,

    Yes, but what’s stopping those able to pay higher rates wanting more? Will the Telco’s be able to handle the demand. If not, will the better quality be at the expense of the standard one?

    If Big Media Company A comes along and says I want this much access and I’m willing to pay top dollar, and if the telco can’t give it to them (yet) what will the Telco do? Ah, come back in 2-3 years when we’ll have access. No, they’ll simply use what they’ve got (at the expense of the normal user).

    2-3 times faster than today. Then that would be a no-brainer. We all win. But will this happen? And when?

    If we don’t get to this 2-3 times faster than today and the Telco’s can offer a better service to the highest bidder as early as next year all I can see is a split happening: We’ll get massive content influx from a few media companies and the small guys will be trailing behind.

    Now, no one wants Big Government meddling in business. But what other way is there to make sure we all get a fair go.

20. May 9th, 2006 at 6:42 am
    ME Strauss said

    Martin,
    I agree it seems the only answer. Still Jeran’s right, it’s a damn scary one. I think they should put us in charge. That’s the only solution I like.

21. May 9th, 2006 at 6:49 am
    Martin said

    Yeah Liz,
    Let the inmates take over the aslyum :-)

    Of course, Jeran is right. But only if it’s 2-3 times faster than today. But will we be paying 2-3 times more the access?