Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Net Nuetrality - Good or bad?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by jirf88, Jan 19, 2010.

  1. From /.

    I always find the topic of Net Neutrality interesting. Personally, I feel its one of the more important decisions that the gov'ts of today face in regards to how the net is used and shaped in the future.

    On one hand, having a central authority or "Internet Police" has the potential to bring several benefits to the internet. Such as removing the ability for spammers/cyber crims from taking shelter behind obscure international law. On the flip side, do we really want one centralized body dictating what we see, say and do on the internet? And who's law would take precedence... national or internet?

    Personally, I'm for a neutral net. Largely because of my disbelief that any central authority could possibly ever manage their power properly, partly because I like the fact that I can say and do what I like on the internet, and remain for the most part, anonymous.

    How about you?

  2. I am totally against a single entity controlling the internet.

    It is too much information, knowledge, influence and power to hand over to any one organisation.

    They would abuse that power, and anyone suggesting they wouldn't, is a simpleton.
  3. I've swung between the camps in the past, but now wholly sit within the net-neutrality camp in that it should never be under censorship. I used to be in favor or censorship on the basis of protecting children from paedophiles and the like.

    Had a big debate about it with a good friend, and he made the very powerful argument that information should always be free on the basis of what can be done if it's restricted, and highlighted the gross human rights abuse of various nations in history and how lack of information flow allowed far more massive and greater crimes against immensely greater numbers of people than that of a few paedophiles, who will likely be outed and caught anyway through vigilence.

    That's what it comes down to. Free information allows vigilence, and it demands vigilence, and as a society, vigilence IS the both the price and consequence of freedom.

    The censorship the internet removes our ability to be duly vigilent against the greater evils that can occur in secret or behind propagana and misinformation. I wholly oppose any censorship control over the internet, and ANY individual who believes or expects free, democratic, and transparent governance MUST insist on the internet being free and neutral. Anyone who believes otherwise is either ignorant, stupid, or has an agenda.
  4. *peering into crystal ball*...... it will become government owned and run... and will run like a dog!!....
  5. It will be run by the Americans, and in turn Private American companys. Goodbye free content, Hello 800 page ELUA.
  6. It is a myth that it fully exists today, but that does not mean that Net Neutrality is not a worthwhile goal. There are the aspects of censorship such as occur with the "Great Firewall of China" and soon to be the Australian ISP Level Filtering that attack free speech under the guise of protection of its citizens.

    There is a second area though; if a type of Internet behavior, such as Peer to Peer sharing, torrents, etc affects the quality of experience of the majority should ISPs be able to classify types of traffic and assign priority. This is an area that ISPs can abuse, suddenly classifying your traffic as low priority because you use ElCheapo Internet Providers and not GoldStar Internet Providers.

    An Open accessible platform is what large companies/governments fear and individuals should work to protect. IMHO