posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:22 PM
Originally posted by timepolarity
The conservative argument against net neutrality ignores a single but crucial point - in almost all cases, these telecoms are given a pseudo-monopoly
by the government over bands of frequency or laid wire. Yes, the companies themselves pay for the infrastructure, but this would be like claiming
some air harvesting company has dominion over the air because they paid for the refinery.
I'll give my conservative spin. The issue needs better definition and a lot of ideas get mixed up in to net neutrality. First, on the subject of
infrastructure, if a company incurs expenses to purchase right of ways and lay down lines including private lines then that is there business. The
government has no business getting involved and crushing innovation and investment.
Also - not part of neutrality is that Company A should be able to purchase more bandwidth than Company B - its based on demand which is tied to
Neutrality is more about Quality of Service (QoS) and packet routing. The concept is to allow Company A to pay for packet priority - reducing the
latency between you and Company A. Honestly I'm on the fence. We're in a world where internet sites are providing QoS to connecting clients but
having little capacity to deliver due to the networks in between. A QoS system will help solve that and give us all better quality to the sites we
use the most. The downside is that its like making it so that Blue Flower Trucks can go through the traffic intersection before anyone else including
the startup Red Flower Trucks. In a way though it is no different than everything else in life.
A $100000 Service Company is going to have a hell of a time competing with a $1,000,000,000 Service Company - but then again the billion dollar
company didn't have to compete against someone with the same advantage when it started. I think the issue could be largely solved with incubator
systems where the QoS could be provided to start-ups for a period of time (36 months) at next to nothing costs.
I certainly don't think non-neutrality is the doomsday that everyone here thinks it is. The idea behind the image posted earlier would of course
never fly with the public and so would be dead on arrival. Great thing about not having the government dictate how things are with the power of
The other idea brought up sometimes on this issue is the one where site A has to provide "both" sides of an issue and present issues equally.
Basically that is intended to protect politicians and the people in power by putting sites like ATS out of business.