This is not my beautiful Internet

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://gizmodo.com/5391707/losing-net-neutrality-the-worst-case-scenario' target='_blank'>http://gizmodo.com/5391707/losing-n...t-case-scenario</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"It's alarmist, over-the-top pro-net-neutrality propaganda, sure, but this chart goes a long way to explaining why the IT dude at the office wears that "All Packets are Created Equal" shirt to work every Thursday: because tiered ISPs are scary."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com//dht/auto/1256837815.usr20447.png" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Net neutrality has been fought over for quite some time now, with both sides firmly entrenched in their ideas.&nbsp; Gizmodo has put up a picture of a theoretical pricing chart of how an ISP could charge for Internet access if net neutrality were to be shot down.&nbsp; The chart does look a lot like the current pricing chart I see from my cable television provider so it definitely has that plausible feeling to it.&nbsp; For me, being pro-net-neutrality, my bigger concern with what is implied in this chart, is that ISPs would start to revert back to the old days of AOL and CompuServe, where ISPs are no longer just pipes to the Internet, but content gateways, nudging you to only use certain websites.&nbsp; The chart is basically an advertisement for only the major companies.&nbsp; This would not only enforce a static Internet, but put new concepts and ideas from upstart companies at a severe disadvantage.&nbsp; Dark days indeed.</p>

[otipoby]

OK, here is a counterpoint argument against net-neutrality. First, let me start by saying I do not even pretend to understand or know the nuances of cable and phone regulation, so, I may be way off.

If (and this might be a big invalid assumption) their are multiple ways to get on the internet in most US locations and their are not legal barriers to enter the ISP market, then having companies stratify their offering based on where people are allowed to go on the internet would provide MORE choice for consumers.

To be honest, not everyone wants to use the internet the same. My parents, for example, do not have the internet. If their phone provider offered a cheap (maybe free) package that had limitations on where they could go, but allowed email, they might take it.

What the graphic above does not show is what the net-limited plan costs. I pay about $22 bucks a month. If the net-limited plan was $5 for no video sites (heavy bandwidth), that might be interesting.

I say, let the market decide. Remember, AOL didn't do so hot the first time around when people got a taste of the full internet.

[Jason Dunn]

To be honest, not everyone wants to use the internet the same. My parents, for example, do not have the internet. If their phone provider offered a cheap (maybe free) package that had limitations on where they could go, but allowed email, they might take it.

Think about it like cable TV: I think many of us would like to be 100% a-la-carte in terms of which channels we want (I know I would!) but the cable companies insist on selling everything in "tiers" and "bundles". I really can't see them offering something cheap like that - up here in Canada at least, the cheaper packages still "go" everywhere, but they throttle back the speeds to 1mbps - which is pretty bad for any sort of media streaming, including Flash-heavy sites - and still charge $31 CAD/month for it.

[ptyork]

What the graphic above does not show is what the net-limited plan costs. I pay about $22 bucks a month. If the net-limited plan was $5 for no video sites (heavy bandwidth), that might be interesting.

It wouldn't be "no video sites." It would be "you can go to CNN and Disney and ..." Basically they would create bundles of allowed content providers and would most certainly get kickbacks from those providers. The "no video sites" option already effectively exists by way of bandwidth-limited (speed or quantity) accounts. These would actually still be perfectly acceptable under net-neutrality laws. What they WON'T be able to do is packet-sniff and block/throttle certain TYPES of content (say Skype or BitTorrent) or restrict access to specific destinations (like pornsite.com or competitor.com). That type of control is only acceptable in Iran and China.

I say, let the market decide. Remember, AOL didn't do so hot the first time around when people got a taste of the full internet.

I agree, EXCEPT for the realities of Internet access. Cable companies are currently the only viable providers of affordable, high-bandwidth Internet. They are, in most places, just like the power company in their control and are quasi-monopolies. They are granted access to markets by the government at the exclusion of competitors. Plus, the startup costs for competitors form a real barrier to entry. It is NOT a free market. Consumers are not on equal standing with the providers. Even if there are two or three viable alternatives, conditions are ripe for collusion. Any economist will tell you that this type of situation almost always requires regulation.

Once there are real, plentiful alternatives, then these types of regulations can be relaxed. Until then, PLEASE give me net neutrality and maybe even pricing restrictions.