Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8245Re: [wpmac] [OT] Google, Facebook and Amazon demand true net neutrality

Expand Messages
  • Chad Smith
    May 8, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      What International Resource?

      The Internet?

      I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is - and perhaps even what "The Internet" is.

      But - in a nutshell - the Net Neutrality debate is this:  Can Internet Service Providers offer a "Fast lane" for certain websites to their customers.

      ISP's already offer speed levels to their customers to the Internet in general.  (Pay one amount per month get a certain speed - pay more get a faster speed).

      What ISPs are wanting to offer is the other side.  A certain content provider wants their site to load faster than other pages - so they pay the ISP for this "Fast Lane" access.  So no matter what speed the customer (end user) is paying for, if they visit the Fast Lane company's site - it loads much faster.

      This would not slow down any current sites - but what it would do, or at least the fear is - it would create a split within the Internet.  The "Fast Lane" sites - and everybody else.  Basically the companies that can afford to pay the Fast Lane Fee would have be seen by more people and get more traffic than those who could not.  People don't like waiting for pages to load.  So if your site is Fast Tracked - more people will be willing to load it.

      Why is this an American issue?  Well, because it involves American companies selling services to American citizens and possibly to other companies (American and International).

      It does not affect any other country.  It could set a precedent for other countries to follow.  But ultimately, the laws set by Congress would only affect American consumers.  If Net Neutrality fails in the USA - end users in other countries would not be affected in any way.  But companies who want their websites fast tracked to American end users would have to pay for that privilege.  (Their sites would still be available to American end users - just as quickly and easily as they are now.  But they would *seem* slower compared to the Fast Tracked sites.)

      So, again, this would not affect anyone outside the US.

      It does not affect free speech.  It does not affect what is or is not allowed on the Internet.  It does not force anyone or any company to buy anything.

      I support Net Neutrality.  I believe it should be a level playing field.  I just wanted to clarify what it actually means.

      - Chad W. Smith

      On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM, John Rethorst <johnrethorst@...> wrote:

      Curious that an American government agency should be empowered to
      make the decision about the international resource. IAC, if you can,
      think about writing your congressional representatives and senators.
      I have.


      John R.

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic