My Take On Net Neutrality - Do You Agree? [telecom]

formatting link

***** Moderator's Note *****

PLEASE read the FAQ before making anonymous contributions! This one came from a TD reader who asked for anonymity, but then quoted the entire 2017 article from a site that features a blogger known as "Kim Komando," a.k.a. "America's Digital Goddess."

I've never read "Kim Komando's" writing before, but IMHO this particular effort is a once-over-lightly take on a complicated and technical topic that is not amenable to sound-bite summaries.

And yet, I'm going to publish the URL. If nothing else, such glib explanations of what "Net Neutrality" means or should mean are a place to start debating the issue. While I personnaly feel that the FCC's rules should not have been revoked, and I have contributed to an organization that is attempting to get the Congress to overrule the FCC on this issue, I also feel that growing pains of the Internet need more analysis and thought than "Kim Komando" provided.

On one side of this political football field are the pipe providers such as the Baby Bells, Sprint, or Level 3, lusting after what their executives perceive as the "easy" money that flows through "their" infrastructure, while they hope that we forget that they were paid to construct and maintain it; on the other are content houses, VoIP providers, Skype, and many other near-real-time services that have externalized the cost of distribution onto their customers.

None of the power players want a "Neutral" Internet. They only want an Internet where some animals are more "Neutral" than others.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Anonymous Contributor
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.