Net Neutrality
Turns out I'm an end user... I was trying to get the post link to work when all I needed was the embed code prominently displayed to the right of the video.
Anyways.
My latest outrage is directed at net neutrality. A lot of people don't understand what it means. Right now the bigger battle is being waged in the US. It's not like the scourge of the RIAA. It will affect us a great deal if they break net neutrality. Any site you want to get to that resides on a US based server could be potentially affected. Here's a video that explains the potential bad sides of losing net neutrality.
Here is another add, seemingly from the ISPs fighting against net neutrality. It doesn't offer any real information. It just preys upon gut reactions and punches to the wallet.
YOU PAY!!! I would be more inclined to listen to the anti net neutrality argument if they would actually present some facts as to how it would be beneficial to do away with it. I see it like I see deregulation here in Ottawa. Deregulation has made my electrical bill higher. I was told that opening the sector to competition would lower my bill. Instead each month I have to pay for debts they incurred before they deregulated. They called it a "debt retirement charge. Granted it's not a big fee, but that isn't the point. It's like me charging my employer extra to help pay off my loans. But I digress, my point is that I cannot fathom how it could be good for consumers.
Blah blah. The gist of it is that the companies providing the pipe for companies such as Google want a piece of the action. They want some of the billions of dollars generated by consumers for Google as an example. The argument is simple and hard to argue against but at the same time as right as it may seem it will in my opinion fundamentally change and damage what we have come to know as the internet. The argument against net neutrality is as follows: Google is getting rich by serving ads to consumers through ISP backbones. The ISPs currently have no way to get a piece of that even though they are the sole reason that Google and companies like Google make any money. It's like I own a store and you sell your product through my store and I make no money from it. However I am paying the shipping costs to get your product in to my store.
See, the argument against net neutrality is sound and reasonable. I'm for net neutrality because if we lose that ISPs will get to decide what pages will load fast and what pages will load slow. The internet isn't about that. I don't want my ISP deciding that my favorite porn site will now take even longer to load. I don't have time for that!
Anyways.
My latest outrage is directed at net neutrality. A lot of people don't understand what it means. Right now the bigger battle is being waged in the US. It's not like the scourge of the RIAA. It will affect us a great deal if they break net neutrality. Any site you want to get to that resides on a US based server could be potentially affected. Here's a video that explains the potential bad sides of losing net neutrality.
Here is another add, seemingly from the ISPs fighting against net neutrality. It doesn't offer any real information. It just preys upon gut reactions and punches to the wallet.
YOU PAY!!! I would be more inclined to listen to the anti net neutrality argument if they would actually present some facts as to how it would be beneficial to do away with it. I see it like I see deregulation here in Ottawa. Deregulation has made my electrical bill higher. I was told that opening the sector to competition would lower my bill. Instead each month I have to pay for debts they incurred before they deregulated. They called it a "debt retirement charge. Granted it's not a big fee, but that isn't the point. It's like me charging my employer extra to help pay off my loans. But I digress, my point is that I cannot fathom how it could be good for consumers.
Blah blah. The gist of it is that the companies providing the pipe for companies such as Google want a piece of the action. They want some of the billions of dollars generated by consumers for Google as an example. The argument is simple and hard to argue against but at the same time as right as it may seem it will in my opinion fundamentally change and damage what we have come to know as the internet. The argument against net neutrality is as follows: Google is getting rich by serving ads to consumers through ISP backbones. The ISPs currently have no way to get a piece of that even though they are the sole reason that Google and companies like Google make any money. It's like I own a store and you sell your product through my store and I make no money from it. However I am paying the shipping costs to get your product in to my store.
See, the argument against net neutrality is sound and reasonable. I'm for net neutrality because if we lose that ISPs will get to decide what pages will load fast and what pages will load slow. The internet isn't about that. I don't want my ISP deciding that my favorite porn site will now take even longer to load. I don't have time for that!
Hey where did the link to my site go!
DISS!
Posted by
Jimena |
Monday, December 18, 2006 9:13:00 AM