All projects: Gel, Jobs, Good Todo, Games, Uncle Mark, Blog, Bit Literacy
Why you need to pay attention to net neutrality
Part of the magic of the Web is that you can access any site, any app, any destination just by typing in the URL. Your Internet provider doesn't get in the way and, for example, charge extra for you to access certain sites (as they do for "premium channels" in a TV package). Across the Web, access is an even playing field, without Internet providers acting as gatekeepers - and this way, in the long run, the user experience determines success.
This is the concept behind net neutrality (see Wikipedia), which I believe has been a cornerstone of the Internet's growth and success over the past 20 years.
Net neutrality has been discussed for years, but this week it's become a critical issue as Google and Verizon proposed a new policy framework to begin dismantling net neutrality.
Verizon I understand. But Google? Maybe I misunderstand their intent, but at first glance it looks disappointing.
This is an important one to watch. Thus...
More resources:
• The EFF has a good analysis of the Google-Verizon proposal.
• The NYT has a good summary of the story so far - including a quote from Facebook that it supports "preserving an open Internet."
• The popular tech blog GigaOm, in this post, says:
Today's compromise between Verizon -- one of the nation's largest ISPs (and largest wireless provider) -- and Google on network neutrality is a big story, not necessarily because it's going to change the policy discussion much, but because it marks Google selling out the tech and startup community so it can advance its own economic interests.
• Finally, the site SaveTheInternet.com explains matters pretty clearly (though I'd guess that cable companies - and possibly Google? - would state things differently).
Net Neutrality, as presented as a political cause, is, in plainest terms, bullshit.
Google (before last week, that is!) was keen to present it as a "the evil cable companies will charge you for YouTube and Facebook!!!!", which was never true.
The "open network" hasn't ever been under attack, that I know of.
(The only "preferential treatment" I've ever seen is giving VOIP packets preference over bulk-transfer packets. And this is absolutely necessary for VOIP to work on a congested network, which is every network on earth.
Unsurprisingly, the "SaveTheInternet" people are either honestly (deeply) confused or simply lying - when they claim that ISPs want "some websites to load slower or not at all, they're, well, wrong.
I've never seen or heard of an ISP attempting that or having it as a goal.
Yes, they might well "discriminate in favor of their own VOIP" - and this is not the end of the world, or bad.
The internet is not at risk. Arguably, preventing QoS, which is what "SaveTheInternet"-style NN would be, hurts the internet far, far more than evil "Big Companies" ever will.
And double-ironically, the "Free Press" group that is behind it has problems disclosing their own lobbying.)
NN is a tempest in a teapot, combining the self-interest of Google (which, mind you, I have no problems with) with complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the desires of the other side (which I DO have a problem with) and a staggering (in general) lack of awareness of the internet technical issues involved.
The internet can't afford to be "neutral" the way they want it to be.
Here here! BRAVO This is the most lucid post I've seen yet on Net Neutrality (and by post, I mean Sigivald's comment above...too true)! One only needs to look into the TRUE origins of the TERM Net Neutrality-- Tim Wu--the think tank where it was birthed (this was a PAPER from a think tank NOT an expressed policy from the peering coordinators and other staff who actually manage connectivity issues) and who at the time sat on its board (Schmidt) and who was one of its major contributors (Google, natch).
One also need to examine the history between Google and AT&T and how the LATTER used this as a PR tactic to get lower broadband rates when it purchased YouTube. Google is smart...and will always manage the debate unless everyone just sees this as what it is--a clever tactic. Nothing more.