Network Neutrality has become a very important issue recently. The basic idea, if I am correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), is that with network neutrality, companies that control broadband services cannot configure their networks so that some websites receive faster speeds than others. This of course is unrelated to the speed of the webserver hosting that website, but simply the download speed allowed by the broadband carrier. Currently net neutrality has become a major battle, with people pushing for laws mandating neutrality and those pushing for laws against it.
In essence, without Net Neutrality, larger websites, or those with plenty of money, could gain an instant advantage on the internet over those who don’t. Without Net Neutrality, what will probably happen is the internet will become like free road versus a toll road. If you’re willing to pay the toll, you can have your content delivered quickly. Otherwise, you’re going to have it delivered slowly. This means smaller websites, such as gimme-five, will be delivered very slowly, while larger websites, such as The Washington Post, will be delivered quickly. Furthermore, these larger websites will be forced to compete among one another (perhaps in a bidding war) for the “fastest lane,” giving broadband providers excessive profits that should be going to websites. This will also possibly force way too much traffic to one site that provides the fastest service (especially in multimedia-intensive services) and kill off all of its competition that provides slow, clunky multimedia due to not being able to put up the big bucks for a fast connection.
Larger websites receive much more traffic than smaller ones, and they demand much more bandwidth. Even so, one of the greatest things about the internet is how smaller websites can have such a huge impact. Smaller websites are the websites that eventually transform into the Googles, the eBays, and the Craigslists! Furthermore, what would happen to all of the bloggers out there who have started from scratch and become popular? They didn’t become popular by dropping a lot of money on advertising – they did it because someone stumbled across their website and spread the word.
Humans are impatient creatures, and they’re not going to want to go to websites that might have interesting content that load incredibly slowly, when they can go to websites they know have somewhat decent content that load quickly. This means smaller, quality websites are less likely to be both created and discovered. Furthermore, a select few larger websites might end up getting all of the traffic if they can out-bid the competition, and internet monopolies could arise. We shouldn’t have this happen, as variety is what makes the internet so great. Thus, I fully support the movement for Net Neutrality.
Please let me know if there are any major inaccuracies in this article.
7 Comments for Why are we going to ruin the internet?
Shaniqua | July 7, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Author comment by george | July 7, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Ha, no, this website is also referred to as alt.total.loser . Ok, I stole that joke from Weird Al. Ok, so I listen to Weird Al. So what? He’s awesome.
In all seriousness, I can see your logic. I hope that it’s not merely an attempt to control information, a la 1984 or Farenheit 451, because I suppose that could be a bit scary. Plus, as a former member of my high school’s Freedom to Read Club, I can’t stand for it.
Shaniqua | July 7, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Yup, I didn’t understand the Net Neutrality thing either till Sen Ted Stevens explained it to me ala Wired’s 27BStroke6
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) explained why he voted against the amendment and gave an amazing primer on how the internet works.
There’s one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service is now going to go through the internet* and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let’s talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren’t using it for commercial purposes.
We aren’t earning anything by going on that internet. Now I’m not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [¿]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says “No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet”. No, I’m not finished. I want people to understand my position, I’m not going to take a lot of time. [¿]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck.
It’s a series of tubes.
And if you don’t understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can’t afford getting delayed by other people.
[¿]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it’s not using what consumers use every day.
It’s not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.
Download the Senator’s speech for your MP3 player.
Shaniqua | July 9, 2006 at 9:04 am
I hope you downloaded that MP3. It’s a hoot and a half and destined to be a great historical example of idiots that govern us and how they are unable to regurgitate a briefing given to them by lobbyists.
God, I regret briefing that braying jackass.
Peripherally on the subject of Net Neutrality and Internets, I hope the gang at gimme-five has been checking out the progress over at Encyclopedia Dramatica just for lulz.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com
They also have some a-hole, that I believe stole my moniker, although he/she goes by Sheneequa.
Author comment by george | July 9, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hey sorry I’ve been gone for the weekend. I’ll check it out later on after I run and such today…
Sheneequa | October 27, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I stole your moniker? Yes, you were the first person to think up the name Sheneequa. We don’t even spell it the same you dumb-a. [sic]
Shaniqua | October 29, 2006 at 11:53 am
My, you seem pretty touchy four months later.
I was just using the form demonstrated on the page — e-detective, a-hole, etc — but you seem to have thick skin since it took you four months to get back on it.
Well, anywho, I thought it might a beed a case of identify-theft, but since you spell it different and use a different picture, it be OK wit me hon.
Djew come over to pick a fight or to highlight something new at the dramatica?
A part of what’s going on the government trying to get control over media (international websites with news, and bloggers). In short, information technology and equal access means that bloggers worldwide and news organizations that are inimical to the US security or business posture can influence and counteract the influence of large media.
If the government went directly and requested to shut off access to IHT, Guardian, Jerusalem Post or Al-Jazeera or problemmatic bloggers they would be transparently seen for what they are. Instead, they encourage “market based” forces to play the “but think of the consumer” and “cable would be much cheaper if it competed with Verizon for entertainment delivery”.
Most consumers want cheap even if it costs them unfettered access to unfiltered information (information where YOU are asked to make up your mind vs. someone making up your mind).
In the future, when your access to gimme-five, or any number of other controversial sites, and your access slows down to unbearable, we’ll be able to say it’s the market-forces that made it so. But I suspect that more than market-forces are in play as I watch the government twist in the wind under the scourge of independent political bloggers.
A good example is to return to Al-Jazeera. Why would the American media be in general uproar over a site or station that has limited viewership in the US? Answer: Because even minor deviation from “conventional wisdom” is viewed as dangerous to the marketing message. As if all my years of socialization under the US system would make me flip overnight. Watching the nightly newscasts is insulting, yet informative in its own way, if you’re looking for the way things are presented rather than the things that are presented. Independent voices undo the financial and social “benefits” of media consolidation.
Ooops, sorry, I thought I was posting on alt.conspiracy newsgroup. Who’s got the pictures of the yeti on the grassy knoll?