UGN InfoManager

Neutrality is a good thing, why should a content provider have to pay your ISP to get their content available to you?

While I agree vendors/isps should be able be able to offer premium services, I think the base level of service should be a content agnostic service - "bare bandwidth" - and shouldn't filter P2P or VOIP, Skype or Real Time traffic more than a shared ethernet wire might.

At least "best" effort. Where "Best" isn't an excuse, and your "max attainable speed/bandwidth" can actually realistically be attained.

Maximum bandwidth should be possible (PIR), and yeah, if you want you can pay for a CIR that isn't 0, go for it, but ISPs shouldn't be turning your PIR into 0. At least not for long.

Contention ratios need to be mandated by government... or at least known to consumers - so they have a choice. If they don't have a choice, then maybe the government needs to get involved.

I agree that "neutrality is a good thing"

Everyone seems to see the same 'symptoms' of this issue -- the ones being hyped by either side -- which may or may not be realistic.

> why should a content provider
> have to pay your ISP to get
> their content available to you?

Agreed. And this is one of the cornerstone arguments on the 'neutrality' side.

however, the other side asks:

> why should Amazon
> have to pay FedEx to
> ship books to you?

Hmmmmmm. A different point of view always puts a different light on the subject. But, you say "Amazon doesn't pay for that, the buyer pays."

Correctomundo! So since there are hefty costs involved in delivering the heavy content delivery the "big boys" want to "make available" to you, "net neutrality" would make YOU have to pay for it, rather than the "sender."
The ISP is caught in the middle, and what do they have to do to protect
their businesses? Charge more.

The U.S. Post Office charges the "content provider" to deliver junk mail to you. The larger the package, the higher the postage. We pay a tiny amount for little letters. Unfortunately, spammers don't have to pay AT ALL to send junk email to you... but that's because of Net Neutrality. But do you think they'd keep sending if they had to pay a nickle a piece?

Rather than becoming blind-sided by the passionate rhetoric of the various camps, I have to follow the money trail. That's where the truth lies.

Hypothetically, if they did put the bill into law, ask WHO is willing to pay the extra tariff to make "content" available to you and build the infrastructure so it gets there. Probably only those with content of some value -- and they'd probably charge you for it anyway.

No, I think it's like Fred said... it boils down to a battle between the American Free Enterprise system, and "freedom for all" -- at what cost do we enjoy freedom and what is the threshold at which the FEDs have to jump in and limit freedom through legislation?

A tightrope for sure.

Fred always posts items from his OWN local representative, Bob Goodlatte -- I wish other readers and UG members here would post THEIR news from congressmen or senators.

All of these issues are very important -- and with all the drive-by media hype over the upcoming presidential elections REAL issues like these get swept under the rug.

C'mon folks, let's hear what YOU are doing to preserve our internet.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't a regulated internet the only way to stop online cyber crime?