Internet Neutrality: Is it to our benefit?
Definitions of network neutrality
At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[7] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality:
- Absolute non-discrimination
- Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."[8]
- Limited discrimination without QoS tiering
- United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[9]
- Limited discrimination and tiering
- This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee
I'm for it
Side Score: 21
|
 |
I'm against it
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
I have absolutely no idea what QoS tiering is, and the links didn't work for me for some reason. But who would decide what is "quality content?" I just would not like the internet to get to the point where one could not find an opinion on a topic, or information, because someone decided they did not agree with that idea, or did not like it, and so deemed that it was "not quality content," based on opinion. I'm for zero oversite, zero discrimination. When laws are broken, which they inevitably are, it's the responsibility of law enforcement to catch the perpetrators, not the internet. Side: I'm for it
2
points
As for now, I think many people are jumping the gun on this. So i'm not for it, for now. The wording is also very tricky because the intention is neutrality but in reality it could be the opposite. I just saw that my debate info was not complete as it was when I first previewed it. Here is a source to give you a good foundation but again this is just one that sites 60 but those sixy i see a lot of newpapers, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Check this out. Side: I'm against it
2
points
Sorry about that...it was copy and pasted from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ But you should take time to learn more about it and the debate around it. It's very important because this affects us all on the level of what we're even doing right now on this site. Side: I'm for it
If Net neutrality is squashed, providers would setup tiers in which the most viewed sites would be open to the public at the same speed as they were getting earlier. Lesser used/lesser known/new sites won't be displayed and the consumer would have to pay to get it displayed. So it won't increase any quality. In reality you will just have to pay to see sites that you see for free. The arguments they are putting is that if NN is smashed, providers can control and root out bad stuff like porn, terrorism, hatism... Needless to say it goes against free speech. The government does it anyways. Do we want to lay that power in the hands of providers as well Side: I'm for it
|
well, it's still a very weird ass fuckin' subject, so for now i won't support it. I think if the internetz wants to stay alive, it has to find some way to police itself. I've already seen certain things that i wish i hadn't (illegal shit, won't get into it). just cause of 4chan too. yeah, allow the violence and shit, but stuff like pedophilia should have zero tolerance. then again, i really don't know how it works, i'm really just responding to what david said about police and the netz. but to be honest, i have very little idea on how net neutrality works. Side: I'm against it
Net neutrality is actually to do with stopping the prioritisation of certain traffic, not policing the net. In its worst form, it could lead to certain large companies (such as microsoft, etc) from being able to have their traffic sent about the internet quicker then others, purely because they can afford to pay for it. It's extremely anti-competition. Say for example that a new search company, we'll call it Awesome Search, has a fantastic new search website. This search website provides far better results then the leading search website (Google), and many people would want to use it. Google immediately prices the other website out of the market by paying for traffic to and from its servers to be delivered with high priority. Now, if you're a user, will you be willing to wait longer for better search results? The site would seem slow and unresponsive, simply because a bigger company has the money to price you out. It's a stupid concept thought up by people who just want to make money. Another example is your ISP slowing down all traffic to and from its competitors. Net neutrality basically says "no" to this stupid idea of allowing people with the most money to provide the best service. Side: I'm for it
2
points
1
point
1
point
Side: I'm against it
|
