?

Log in

These guys prove they really don't get it. - I, for one, welcome our new overlords... [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Ouroboros

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Sep. 22nd, 2009|05:05 pm]
Ouroboros
These guys prove they really don't get it.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: khayman
2009-09-23 11:00 pm (UTC)
My feeling is that this should be legislated because I'd rather not have large telco's deciding what's important on the internet. Anti-network neutrality policies would allow Time Warner (for instance) to decide that traffic to Amazon.com is more important than traffic to a small bookstore. Possibly it would allow Time Warner to slow or block access to AT&T's broadband offerings (a competitor) or perhaps redirect requests to an alternate site. On top of that, they could place a higher priority on delivering things like e-mail or advertising vs. video content.

The argument of network neutrality is that the users should be able to decide what is appropriate, important, etc... If I buy from my provider a 10mbps connection and you buy a 10mbps connection we should be able to communicate at or near our purchased speed regardless of what we're doing. Telecommunications providers are arguing that they should be able to decide what type of internet traffic to give priority to and moreso that they should be able to penalize (either practically via speed reductions or fiscally).

Comcast is one of the biggest offenders which uses a process called "traffic shaping" to slow down or block completely the delivery of certain types of content over the internet. But since in so many areas they hold a complete monopoly on the broadband systems there's really no recourse for the consumer and moreso most consumers are too ill-informed to know or understand.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)