

The "fast lane" to Internet civil war - LandoCalrissian
https://neocities.org/blog/the-fast-lane-to-internet-civil-war

======
techwatching
You know what communicated the perils of Net Brutality to me? Images like this
one:

[http://www.ohgizmo.com/2009/10/29/net-neutrality-what-it-
cou...](http://www.ohgizmo.com/2009/10/29/net-neutrality-what-it-could-mean/)

Websites being reduced to cable-like add ons. Just terrible.

Edit: I followed the chain of blog spam attribution all the way back to the
original source of the Net Neutrality graphic:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scen...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scenario_i_just_created_illustrating/)

Edit2: Another similar example:
[http://images.appleinsider.com/netneutrality091808.png](http://images.appleinsider.com/netneutrality091808.png)

Apparently this was a big deal in 2009.

~~~
HannoverFiste
It's even worse than that. Cable companies have to pay a portion of that add-
on fee to the channels for their content. In this case of (not) throttling
bandwidth, the ISPs are keeping all of the fees since you're not paying for
the content, just access to it.

------
ggchappell
This is worthwhile read that makes some good points.

But it should be noted that _net neutrality_ is only a restriction on data
carriers. It is not a restriction on sites or hosting services.

FTA:

> And combined with geographical data, I could do some serious discrimination
> on the internet. For example, I could compile an IP block list of the most
> conservative places in the country, and prevent them from accessing my site.
> I could use demographics to do this in some very exotic ways. I could block
> districts that have high percentages of minorities, or the highest rates of
> heterosexual couples, or the youngest population, or the highest percentage
> of mental health problems.

And he could still do all that even if net neutrality were enforced by
law/regulation. Comcast couldn't do it, but he could.

~~~
lisper
The big difference being that Comcast is (in many places) a monopoly.
Neocities isn't.

------
coldcode
I like the term Net Brutality. Every said in here is possible and likely at
some point. Once roadblocks become easy to create and maintain our ability to
recognize, comment and affect change is easily stopped.

------
stackcollision
I think I'm out of the loop a bit on the chain of events. Last I heard, the
FCC were the ones holding back the tide by classifying ISPs in a way that
prevented them from limiting bandwidth. And then recently a court stripped
them of this ability, opening the gates for ISPs to manage their bandwidth how
they wanted. Is there a step somewhere after this that I missed where the FCC
turned into the enemy? It seems strange to be protesting the FCC like this,
when afaik they were the ones who were on our side for so long.

But please, someone correct me if I am wrong. I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd
like to be on this.

------
omgitstom
The only way content providers can emulate the restriction of data carriers
net neutrality abuses is to get more content providers on board.

This needs larger scope to have an impact. Get a bunch of content providers to
throttle all of DC. Have a banner to display on all websites:

'Accessing from DC? Yea it is slow. This is the world without net neutrality
if we were unable to pay data carriers for a fast lane. Save the internet, act
now @ ____. '

------
michaelbuckbee
I think the idea's expressed are correct, but the example we need to be
touting is wrong. Politicians are raising an increasing amount of their
campaign dollars from their internet sites and threatening them cuts to the
heart of the issue.

------
AnthonyMouse
I think the author has it a bit wrong. If the KKK decides they want to try to
prevent African Americans from visiting their website, that doesn't really
have anything to do with network neutrality.

The relevant network neutrality issue is: Your ISP oversubscribes its peering
link to the wider internet, so people in your ISP's service area who visit the
NAACP's website to watch a video of a speech by a civil rights leader won't be
able to see it. Meanwhile your ISP's Fox News affiliate comes in loud and
clear to inform you of the dangers of welfare queens and anchor babies. (Feel
free to substitute videos on the Tea Party website and your ISP's MSNBC
affiliate if it better matches your political leanings.)

~~~
scelerat
Ok, thought exercise. Comcast's owner decides that he doesn't like the KKK or
any anti-semitic group. And Comcast starts charging them extra, or throttling
their traffic or blocking them outright. Should they be allowed to?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Ok, thought exercise. Comcast's owner decides that he doesn't like the KKK
> or any anti-semitic group. And Comcast starts charging them extra, or
> throttling their traffic or blocking them outright. Should they be allowed
> to?

No, for the same reasons that the government shouldn't be allowed to.

Try a different thought experiment. It's 1910 and the government regulates the
operation of printing presses such that only one press is operated in each
state. Should the government be able to set out regulations with that result
and then give the press operator carte blanche to choose whose words can be
printed? Should you care whether the thing they're refusing to print is from
the KKK or the NAACP?

------
naturalethic
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and
deserve to get it good and hard."

Good luck with government regulation of your network.

~~~
scelerat
I'm not sure what you're getting at...

I can at the very least vote for the people who are writing laws and making
policy. The people, via democratic government, have (theoretically) some
influence on how the network is to be administered and regulated.

If rules are left to the whims of a single monopoly or a small oligopoly of
network providers, the only options are "take it" or "leave it."

~~~
naturalethic
The government is a monopoly. The network providers that currently hold
monopolies only do so due to government protection. When it comes to the
government itself, the only option is "take it", so that's even worse.

