3 ms·

>without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit fro

>without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user. I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality. // For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.

virmundi 13y ago
I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.
- Kliment 13y ago
  Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.
zem 13y ago
see my reply to macspoofing - this is not about how fast your home internet is, it is about your ability to send stuff in the other direction. i'm not particularly concerned about cable tv because there isn't much leverage in having better access to tv shows; however, being better able to participate in a two-way flow of information potentially carries huge leverage abilities, and the people who already have influence/money/power will be further advantaged by the new system.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  I think you may have a warped view of the problems that lack of Net Neutrality would bring. Content creation, and ... errr.. "participation in a two-way flow of information" is not particularly served by Net Neutrality. Writing and consuming blogs, IMs, twitter comments, emails, forum posts and reddit comments would be virtually unchanged since those are all bandwidth-cap friendly activities and don't particularly need a large pipe anyway ( A basic 5MB connection is more than enough ). Communication apps such as Skype and Hangouts may be affected (though they don't consume that much bandwidth and also don't require a particularly fat pipe). However most are controlled by big conglomerates who would be willing to pay the telecom toll and so may actually work better in a non-neutral internet. HD Video streaming services and software downloads (e.g. via Steam or Xbox) are probably the things most affect by Net Neutrality, especially since telecoms have competing services and those types of services benefit immensely from unlimited caps and lots of bandwidth. So I'm still confused as to what argument you're trying to make. You're hand-waving quite a bit trying to position it as a grave ethical issue and I just don't see it. Again, I think Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. It benefits everyone (except telecoms) and it's been a huge success so far. Let's keep it.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    That's a fairly narrow and presumptious definition of the possible consequences resulting from a lack of Net Neutrality. There is no real limitation on how the ISPs can wield their power AFAIK. For instance, why wouldn't they offer HuffingtonPost (essentially a blog) the opportunity to buy faster access for their readers? But, even if we were to take your assumptions at face value, I'm not sure how you gloss over other details (such as their ability to price competitors like Netflix out of the market or essentially hold their users for ransom to the highest bidder). Given that they are quasi-monopolies in most cases, these are certainly issues that deal with consumer choice on one end and access to opportunity on the other (i.e. for content providers, startups, etc.). In other words, these are issues of fairness. How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Would you not agree that fairness as a principle is morally right? That is the definition of ethical. You made the argument in another comment that it's no more a matter of ethics than is raising taxes. But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical? If none of this makes sense to you, then therein lies the divergence. It's one regarding the basic definition of ethical.

virmundi 13y ago

I would say that there is an unethical conflict of interest now with the at least Comcast. Comcast offers home security monitoring now. They could, they haven't said they would, start to require their home security competition to pay for access to the pipe to the home. It's the same thing with Comcast's on-demand vs Netflix. Comcast is going to favor its own offering to the detriment of the competitor. They should not be allowed to do this. They should be given two options: 1) open network and they can keep all their extras like security or 2) close network but no extras.

Kliment 13y ago
Option 2 is unworkable because you just end up with company A providing access with no extras but preferential service for company B as a "valued partner" and excluding all of company B's competitors.

zem 13y ago

see my reply to macspoofing - this is not about how fast your home internet is, it is about your ability to send stuff in the other direction. i'm not particularly concerned about cable tv because there isn't much leverage in having better access to tv shows; however, being better able to participate in a two-way flow of information potentially carries huge leverage abilities, and the people who already have influence/money/power will be further advantaged by the new system.

macspoofing 13y ago
I think you may have a warped view of the problems that lack of Net Neutrality would bring. Content creation, and ... errr.. "participation in a two-way flow of information" is not particularly served by Net Neutrality. Writing and consuming blogs, IMs, twitter comments, emails, forum posts and reddit comments would be virtually unchanged since those are all bandwidth-cap friendly activities and don't particularly need a large pipe anyway ( A basic 5MB connection is more than enough ). Communication apps such as Skype and Hangouts may be affected (though they don't consume that much bandwidth and also don't require a particularly fat pipe). However most are controlled by big conglomerates who would be willing to pay the telecom toll and so may actually work better in a non-neutral internet. HD Video streaming services and software downloads (e.g. via Steam or Xbox) are probably the things most affect by Net Neutrality, especially since telecoms have competing services and those types of services benefit immensely from unlimited caps and lots of bandwidth. So I'm still confused as to what argument you're trying to make. You're hand-waving quite a bit trying to position it as a grave ethical issue and I just don't see it. Again, I think Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. It benefits everyone (except telecoms) and it's been a huge success so far. Let's keep it.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  That's a fairly narrow and presumptious definition of the possible consequences resulting from a lack of Net Neutrality. There is no real limitation on how the ISPs can wield their power AFAIK. For instance, why wouldn't they offer HuffingtonPost (essentially a blog) the opportunity to buy faster access for their readers? But, even if we were to take your assumptions at face value, I'm not sure how you gloss over other details (such as their ability to price competitors like Netflix out of the market or essentially hold their users for ransom to the highest bidder). Given that they are quasi-monopolies in most cases, these are certainly issues that deal with consumer choice on one end and access to opportunity on the other (i.e. for content providers, startups, etc.). In other words, these are issues of fairness. How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Would you not agree that fairness as a principle is morally right? That is the definition of ethical. You made the argument in another comment that it's no more a matter of ethics than is raising taxes. But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical? If none of this makes sense to you, then therein lies the divergence. It's one regarding the basic definition of ethical.