Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Seen Through the Telegraph
James McP writes "Ars Technica has a write-up on the unregulated telegraph of the 19th century, which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality. The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism."
Why do you think certain groups are so pushing against it? Telcos, news networks... It's no coincidence that the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... it's the thin end of the wedge.
Comparing the Internet to the Telegraph?
I would have chosen a more appropriate comparison like the regrowth of injured legs on starfish, but maybe that's just me.
If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: http://www.lcwo.net/. .-.
Get your own free personal location tracker
The bottom line is that you are being screwed. It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government. Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important. ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent. Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.
Slippery Slope, anyone?
A lot of people seem to allow this to slip by, but the "free market" is composed of "actors", or PEOPLE.
When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting. For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.
In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.
People who provide internet services will abuse any way they can to gain more money, power, and control. (the same goes for software, medical insurance, mass media, commodities, you name it)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I am waiting for the proof to come up when it is shown that tapping is going on at qwest, ATT, Verizon, etc BY the companies, and not for the feds. It will show a clear pattern of the company execs using some interesting scanning equipment to obtain information for themselves.
"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!
"There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. "
"Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?"
Apart from all of that, you don't even know what is being talked about here. We are talking about REGULATING, CENSORING, and EVESDROPPING activities.
If you want to fix your Bad Analogy, you should compare this to allowing the turnpike authority to search the contents of every vehicle that enters their roadway, and also allowing them to steal and/or make substitutions for any cargo on any vehicle that enters their roadway.
There, I fixed your BAD ANALOGY for you.
Two fiber optic cables carry twice the traffic of one while consuming virtually no more resources, and they can be upgraded without disrupting existing infrastructure.
Go ahead and try to double the capacity of a highway without consuming more right-of-way or disrupting existing infrastructure.
My ISP (Comcast) consistently delivers bandwidth far in excess of what they advertise.
Your car analogy is really falling apart because the Internet is FAR less congested than our roadways.
Thanks for the Information.this is really very great news.from past so many days I was searching for this kind of article. Barbara financial services
So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government, because they're oh-so-neutral and objective? You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins? You really think a lobby group wouldn't bribe the government to regulate your precious Bittorrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism" or that the government wouldn't monitor your private Facebook posts when they're already happy to continue wiretapping your phone without warrants?
Seriously, does anybody even think this shit through? I've never gotten the "net neutrality" (as phoney a name as the Patriot Act) argument or heard of a convincing example of abuse that proves it's even needed. The internet isn't a right. It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants. Don't like it, don't use that ISP. That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration. Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.
Can we please stop expanding government power for no fucking reason? Pretty please?
The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers
Regard the building of new internet highways exactly as that of new real highways. Private firms build them, profit from them for some years, then it becomes public property under the ruling of the state. After that you only need to be lucky and have a government which is not inclined towards cutting highways and roads and removing driving licenses for nonsensical reasons from the drivers.
Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting? Give me a fucking break. I want sysadmins regulating their company's services--which they have every right to do--not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes. The internet isn't a right or a life necessity. It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television, and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar. A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is. There's no incentive to please you as a customer. You're a citizen who will do what it says.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic. Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is. Uh-huh.
Your whole argument depends on the premise that government regulation is always detrimental. This is untrue on the face of it. Government has a strong role to play in regulation, rule making, arbitration, justice, social justice, and defense.
OSHA regulations protect workers from dangerous work environments.
NTSB regulations protect travelers.
Our courts provide a venue to exercise our most important right, the right to redress of grievances.
Government regulation is a good thing because it provides the rules to which our society must adhere. Without these rules, a veritable free-for-all would occur. In a market with many players, this may be beneficial, but in a market of captive customers like we have in the American ISP market this can be very detrimental.
It's not even good enough to make the rules once and let things be. As we've seen countless times the rules need to be readdressed occasionally to adapt to new situations. Our founding fathers new this, and that is why we have the Constitutional Amendment process.
Historically, the only real "laissez-faire" founding father was Thomas Jefferson and pretty much all his contemporaries considered him a fraud and brigand. Government regulation has been the cornerstone of our country for almost two and a half centuries. To claim some sort of high moral ground because you oppose it in this one specific case is pretty sad.
"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."
No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water. The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
"That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration."
I work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work. I have only one choice of ISP. My ISP has GREAT power over me. They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer.
"Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago."
Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation? How does that follow? That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology.
What a great way for technology companies to unload their obsolete technology onto the unsuspecting public!
Again the road analogy FAILS, because roads are basically unchanged since Roman times, and Internet gear goes obsolete within a few years.
What is WRONG with having the government CONTRACT construction to private firms while holding the property rights? We do this ALL THE TIME with our public infrastructure.
Who haven't read it?
The Internet and the gear that runs it is a source of Power to whoever runs it.
This power WILL be taken and abused by whoever controls it.
Take off your blinders and understand that our economic system and our society exist ONLY because there are government regulations to hold it together.
You speak of corporations acting freely but you fail to realize that it is the power of government that allows them to have this freedom in the first place.
You are INSULTING and WRONG to paint everyone who disagrees with you as hating free markets.
Again you FAIL to understand that free markets DO NOT EXIST without government regulation to keep them free.
Here let me fix one of your sentences for you:
"Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible corporations are. Uh-huh."
Get a clue:
Your employer can fire you for NO REASON. Conversely, you can quit your job for NO REASON.
They call it "employment at will", it is by mutual consent, and either party can back out for any reason that does not violate the law.
Your analogy FAILS because "to make me have sex with him/her as a condition of my employment." is illegal, and "to fire me based on a sex video s/he found on Internet" is NOT illegal.
Give me a break. You stole your signature from the MIT Dormline telephone system. I've gotten that message myself.
Really you should attribute your sources. You are not half as clever as you are pretending to be.
It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself. Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies. And that is exactly what this is about. Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it. And the best solution that that "Somebody" can come up with is to hand it over to the government? That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it, somehow all the "freedoms" will go away and in the end that "Somebody" will praise the regulation because without it, it would have been much worse. Since, as the experience shows, once the government takes control of the communication channels, it is for the freedom and protection of it's users. Just look at China how well that regulation works there.
As a direct result of the lack of regulation, criminals ran things from behind the scenes with bribes and even worse tactics even later on in history. Things were much worse in the early part of the 20th century. A fellow with the nick name of "Dutch Schultz" easily created a gambling and money laundering communications empire by thoroughly corrupting the industry from within. His shtick was so slick that most did not even know to what extent it went on. You essentially had to pay "The Man" if you wanted to do any financial business over the wire period! Not just the fact that it controlled race track betting information and wagering. His mafia partners made enough money to keep the FBI off their backs...J. Edgar Hoover did not even acknowledge that they existed and a substantial part of Washington not just Cities official and Police were on the take. If there is no sensible public oversight of what goes on on the internet then you can bet it will become a haven for criminals and eventually they will run things from behind the scenes!
was the only thing that really solved the problem. Wireless broke the back.
Now, the same thing will have to happen for internet service, or, really, there needs to be some federal regulation involved.
This is my sig.
Again let me fix that for you:
"however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a corporation known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations."
GET A CLUE. The power is THERE and it WILL be grabbed. It is only a question of WHO.
I would rather that the government have the power. At least then there is at least some vague way for the people to have some sort of control over it.
we've learned so much in the last hundred years. We won't let them do that again. Right?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.
except the government is bound by a constitution, and subject to at least SOME form of public accountability.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?
OMG HYPERBOLE, obviously that means my point is invalid, and that people aren't really being stripped of their fundamental rights to privacy and choice, that theyre not being defrauded, that freedom of speech is not being abrogated.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is. Uh-huh.
Let's ask the millions of jobless about which they'd rather have: ANY government beurocrat or the CEO's of AIG; shall we?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
What decade was the fax machine first patented?
The 40s.
The 1840s.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The socialist approach is pathetic.
The internet is doing quite well without regulations from the Federal government. Certainly better and more innovative than any other regulated industry.
You pathetic leftists are so eager to give up your freedoms. You would make perfect slaves in a dictatorship.
> The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph
> to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading,
> and censor criticism.
And it would have been so much better had the government done that instead.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
we need a disruptive technology right now... such as mesh networking or white space
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic
No, I think your parent is more worried about the wrongful regulations.
I want sysadmins regulating their company's services
That's fine, as long as the company providing those services advertises truthfully what the sysadmins are actually doing to your packets.
And, of course, as long as the two internet providers in your zip code (only one of whom offers service to your house) don't collude and offer a deliberately neutered product (i.e. no bittorent, no streaming video, no voip, no [etc.]) when they could just as easily offer the better version just because the non-neutered version competes with their own video delivery service, telephony service, or other service.
the free market keeps abuses in check
Right. That works great, sometimes. Except for tragedy of the commons. And for providing law enforcement, emergency services, health insurance (so I hear), and in some other cases.
But the free market does keep some abuses in check. I think it would be wise to keep abuses in check in the highly non-free internet service market as well.
Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
Could you stop giving large corporations so much power, please? Especially the ones having monopolies or duopolies...
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
I get it. You hate government power and think free markets solves absolutely everything by magic.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible big business is. Uh-huh.
FTFY.
See? It's very easy to take what you say and turn it on its head. The bad thing isn't government power vs. corporate power, but the existence of concentrated power itself. Completely unregulated markets tend to concentrate power. Network effects help that along. It seems that we need even bigger power (in government) to break up concentrated power in the market. I don't think there is an easy solution. But blindly trusting concentrated power on one hand vs. another is a Bad Idea (TM).
"Imposing net neutrality may very well violate the takings clause of the US Constitution"
:)
Net neutrality isn't about restricting the telecoms, it's about preventing them in restricting my rights under the US constitution. And 'net neutrality' came about in response to the telecoms attempt to close off access to the networks in favour of their own offerings. Blacking access to third party telephone companies, skype for instance.
"Spin on all you want about government subsidies to telcos, but the fact is those telcos went and spent their own money on their infrastructure, and based how much they spent on charging for traffic across their networks in certain ways"
Fair enough, the telcos build the infrastructure and we pay for it. We don't require them to decide how we use it. I pay for my electricity, but I don't let the power company decide what I watch on television.
"Now, if the government imposes net neutrality, the government will be significanly reducing the revenue-producing value of the telco's property"
It hasn't stopped them making money up to now. Indeed if 'net neutrality' was in place, the Internet/Web would never have come about.
"And never forget - the only one who will win if net neutrality is imposed are the lawyers"
And never forget how the teleco lawyers are attempting to spin the term 'net neutrality' into something that means the exact opposite. A bit like the canSPAM act, that didn't
davecb5620@gmail.com
Buffoons? Those guys are so damn good at appearing to be stupid, you have to really look very carefully to see the intelligence behind their plans. It can be almost impossible to see. Like Rupert Murdoch. Last month he appeared to be an out-of-touch, C.M.Burns-ian senile old man but he made Google play right into his hands. That old fucker is one smart, evil son of a bitch.
Plus, it's hard to tell a brilliant plan from dumb luck when each step appears mind-bogglingly stupid. It's like cartoon scenes with a Rube Goldberg machine. You see each part doing it's own crazy stupid thing, and it's difficult to figure out what's going on until the end when you see how it all works together.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Internet is unlike any other industry and therefore requires special consideration. Historical arguments about how technologically-reminiscent systems behaved and were handled and interesting and worth paying attention to, but can't be translated directly.
What makes the Internet different is that it's a collaboration: ISPs provide access to content, but the "consumers" (customers of the ISPs) are the ones who actually provide that content. I can't think of any other industry that works that way (but I'd love to hear some examples, that might provide nice insight into the issue). I suppose you might say the same about the telegraph, and telecom in general, but it doesn't line up exactly: telegraphic and telephonic (word?) content are intended for specific recipients, not general broadcast.
Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
And the only way to counter that is to make all communications open to all... Yes, TFA's author probably didn't mean it. But this is the only conclusion from the article's write-up, that doesn't dismiss the entire piece as just a bad analogy...
Because as long as certain communications remain private, all those evil things listed will remain perfectly possible — easy, in fact... (And the baby seals will keep dying too...)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Which is worse... the analogy between telegraph and internet; or the assertion that because one particular arrangement that didn't include "network neutrality" regulation led to abuse, therefore "network neutrality" regulation is the only way to prevent abuse (or would even be sufficient to do so)?
When we try to regulate technical procedures, we fail. If we want to win, we should look instead at regulating business practices. "Without NN companies can double-charge"? Ok, regulate double-charging. "Without NN you can't be sure you get what you paid for"? Ok, regulate not delivering what the customer paid for.
If the only way to sell a "100mbps broadband to the providers of our choice, with 1mbps access to anyone else" were to market it as such, the issue would take care of itself.
I find it amusing that someone in this thread thinks the only people opposed to NN are in the information business. So go ahead, call me a shill; believe if you like that someone at a telco would suggest the type of business regulations I'm talking about. I need a good laugh.
Concerning NN, there's a choice before people.
Option 1: Allow companies the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over networks they own.
Option 2: Allow governments the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over all networks within their governance.
Option 1 gives me a number of companies, each abusing their power in their own way. I am allowed to select from a number of choices how I wish to be abused. Some companies may elect to offer "raw internet" as a selling point, others may offer the squashing of bandwidth hogs as a selling point.
Option 2 gives me a number of companies to choose from, but they are prevented from abusing their power for their own purposes. Instead, I have only one abuser, the agency that regulates NN. While I will not be abused by a company directly, I also have no choice in the manner or methods of my abuse.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
libertarianism is wonderful, but in practice it suffers from a throughput problem: if all wrongs are to be dealt with after-the-fact (in litigation) then all the miscreants have to do is stall (easy to do when you can hire 100x the legal power) & presto: justice delayed is justice denied.
if we know that people will abuse their power, then we must try to prevent irreparable harm in the 1st place. we don't let people dump toxic waste into streams; relying on litigation to solve known problems is ludicrous.
This is ridiculous. NN has no government interference aside from enforcement of the basic ideas - the desire to make it more or less uniform and to not have people have to pay more based on where they live or other factors that SHOULD NOT be factors. The only situation I can imagine where your dire warnings would come to pass would be if the government added to the main NN idea to include government monitoring, which it has not done so far.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Well, you can't really expect the regulatory agencies to regulate unless they can monitor, can you? Then there's the inspection process. Someone has to verify that your network is compliant. So all your new projects, expansions, and services will need a thorough review to verify compliance.
Of course, this only scratches the nightmare of what could happen if people start trying to make the internet "equal" and "uniform". Turns out that rural middle of no where has worse service than uptown because of a historical inequity in telecom distribution. Toss in a few racial demographics, because someone will surely do so, and we can see the whole scope of regulation in the name of equality.
Still, it may be that people feel this is preferable. I contend that there's a choice. You can have the sorts of abuses that governments produce, and no other options, or you can have numerous sources of abuse and choose between the variety of individual abuses that companies produce.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
No one has yet shown me an ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEM that would be solved by Net Neutrality, I only hear about these theoretical, potential problems.
Please reply with an actual, existing problem.
Seems like the free market won out again. Look at the kind of free speech we have on the internet. Even if you're worried about retribution, any geek worth his salt knows of at least a half dozen anonymous proxies. It's a lot easier to post unpopular ideas on the internet than in RL. Does anyone really think that if we let bureaucrats control the internet, we'll be MORE free? Do you think that Obama's going to let people post nude fakes of Michelle on 4chan /b/? Will Pelosi like it if people criticize the way she's running the House on LGF? Isn't this the same forum that wants to REDUCE the US government's control of the IANA?
If you think having big corporations in charge of industries is bad, just try the government. As George Washington said, "Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force. It makes a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." Definitely a big attitude difference from president #1 to president #44.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself.
I read the entire article and came to EXACTLY the opposite conclusion. The article lays out how Jay Gould took over the railroad, the telegraph, Western Union and the AP in a brilliantly-executed series of buyouts, stock price manipulations, information suppression, and other monopolistic practices. It was only when Congress finally passed a law that the telegraph was a "common carrier", just like the mails, that the monopoly was busted.
To me, it's as clear as day that ALL forms of communication technology -- mail, telegrpaph, radio, TV, the internet, the Next Big Thing -- are common carriers because the right to speech has a dependency on communication.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hayessociated+Press%22
The only result is this article..
No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.
Then you are a fool. The government is already controlled by the corporations (which are in turn controlled by the elite) because they control the money and it is extremely difficult to be elected to high office without their assistance and approval. You are permitted the illusion by those with power that your vote maters, but for all practical purposes it rarely does.
No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.
Then you are a fool. The government is already controlled by the corporations (which are in turn controlled by the elite) because they control the money and it is extremely difficult to be elected to high office without their assistance and approval. You are permitted the illusion by those with power that your vote maters, but for all practical purposes it rarely does.
Oh I agree corporations still have way too much leverage. If they had as much as you assert, however, the healthcare bill would have been long dead already.
It's up to YOU, and all your friends to participate to get things done. I'm as cynical as you but I keep writing and sometimes calling, otherwise I become PART of the problem, a coward on the front lines.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Why does everyone automatically assume that a government will abuse power? While it has happened in the past, it doesn't happen automatically.
/.), if you want to polarize it. It's basically a conflict between people who hate all governments, and people who believe that a government (which, ostensibly, has a mandate to protect and help people) or a corporation, which has no such mandate.
This is really a debate between socialists and libertarians (at least on
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
I assume that people will abuse power. In fact, that's the only reason there is ANY discussion of NN. If people weren't inclied to abuse their power there'd be no reason to bother with NN. It's just a matter of who you wish to have in the position to abuse power. Either you prefer to have control over networks abused by the people who build and manage them, or you prefer to have control over networks abused by governments.
If you believe that corporate people won't abuse their power, but government people will, then you have either a benighted view of corporate people or a baleful view of government people. If you believe that government people will not abuse their power, but corporate people will, you have the reverse.
I assume that people in government and people in business are equally likely to abuse me. Given that, I am simply left with the choice of which type of abuse I prefer.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
Then the trick is not deciding which you want to abuse you, but creating a system that isn't conducive to abuse.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Agreed. Unfortunately, in spite of how it is billed, NN does not address the fundamental problem "human beings take advantage of their power". Until such time as a system is devised that does deal with that issue effectively (difficult giving the system would be designed, implemented and managed by human beings), we're left with the original problem of which group or groups of human beings we feel will do the least harm for the greatest amount of benefit. Personally, I am skeptical of any plan that claims to solve the potential problem of a collection of groups of human beings abusing their power by granting greater authority and power to a single group of human beings. Other people may not be as skeptical. I contend that such is still the choice presented at this time.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
I see your point: the enemy you know, not the enemy you don't. However, wouldn't you say that network neutrality, if properly managed, is still a step in the right direction? At its heart, it's a good idea, all it needs is to have its integrity maintained so that it isn't reworked into a national internet monitoring system, such as what Australia is thinking about. If we can do that, I think I we could say that it would be a good thing.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
The idea of network traffic that is not shaped based on content seems to be a good one, in general. Some traffic deserves to be shaped such as spam, DOS attacks and other malicious traffic. I thoroughly encourage the current people in charge of administering such things to keep the system as open as possible. It is my preference to have an option, should I decide the people currently in charge of keeping my access free of interference are doing a bad job. It's worth noting that currently they seem to be doing a fine job and I'm quite happy.
There are a great number of things that "if properly managed" might sound like a good idea. The problem is, the managers are always people. If you think it would be a good idea for Richard Nixon, Barack Obama or George W. Bush to appoint the person in charge of the NN system, and that they, or people like them, would "properly manage" it, then you may well feel it's a good idea.
Personally, I'd rather have a failover system. When I'm unhappy with one provider, I can go to another. If I'm unhappy with the regulatory environment imposed by the FCC, it take considerably more than a phone call to Time Warner to change that part of my service.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
The problem with your "failover system" is when telcos dominate entire areas. Then the only solution is to create a homegrown alternative, like some municipalities have.
The root of the problem is that ISPs and telcos (especially larger ones) have such a high subscriber base that they can afford to lose 5% or 10% of their more educated users (which they will judge as being "bandwidth-wasters"), since it'll make more room for legions of Joe Sixpacks who only want to check their email.
This might seem justified, except for the fact that, if you believe statistics, almost everyone, especially teenagers, are pirates - and whether they are or aren't, they will watch lots and lots of streaming video and download files. It has become commonplace, but many ISPs are stuck in the 90s or early 00s, when there was a divide between users who browsed and checked email, and users who ran warez FTPs and maxed out their bandwidth limit every month in a row. Due to the spreading of technical information, this is no longer true - EVERYONE is the guy with the internet-connected fileserver in his basement (at least to some degree) and infrastructure hasn't scaled up to meet the demand. This is the issue; the only division of opinion is how to solve it, either through capitalistic means (break monopolies and collusion, try to ensure a fair playing field) or "socialist" (restrict the monopolies from doing too much harm).
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Currently I have, at minimum, 3 choices (Hughes, Wild Blue, SkyWay) before I even see a telephone line near my house. I most places, I get at least two more options, DSL and Cable. If I'm really looking for variety, I can get Edge network service through a cell provider everywhere I can receieve a cell signal, and faster networks are expanding.
Telco domination that prevents variety of service is not a reality at this time, and isn't likely to be so in the future.
As for the threat of companies filtering users based on their use... I'd hope they do just that. High capacity users should pay more. If I pay for a 5meg pipe and 20 gigs of data, I expect to get just that. Curently I pay for a 10 meg pipe with unlimited data. In a not-atypical evening, I spent last night watching Hulu while playing WoW (with Vent), with my wife listening to Pandora in another room. I've not experienced service interuptions or limitations that have affected my enjoyment.
In my experience, and the experience of others I know, service is good. The ability to change service is available. Options for service are numerous. Technical advances are making service better, cheaper and providing more options. I see no compelling reason to allow interference in the business at this time.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint