NET NEUTRALITY = COMMUNISM ???

To me what is 'fair' is what you are willing to pay for. To me it is 'unfair' to make all things equal. Those who get better service or quality of product should pay more.

Charging the same amount to carry 'A' traffic bits over the backbone as you do for 'B' traffic would be unfair. (I define 'A' traffic as that traffic that needs low latency.) Right now the Internet is built out in a multilevel 'hub and spoke' topology. That means a lot of 'hops' from one location to another. The more 'hops' the more latency. That will not work for streaming HD VoD traffic nor for huge amounts of VoIP traffic.

Your post, here in the forum of C|Net, would not benefit from being treated at 'A' traffic. Getting your post to me 1/20th of a second faster would make no difference to me or any other readers of your post. However more than a hand full of 1/20th second delays in my VoIP call would cause me to cease the call and go dial up the person over a POTS line.

So, to decrease latency in the Internet we need a different topology. One that is more 'point to point' rather than 'hub and spoke'. And that means a new backbone build-out. And that means more expenditure of capital. And new expenditure needs to be (eventually) paid for by the consumers (providers of a service/product take on the risk of initially spending on new expenditures, but they make up for it in consumer charges later).

But which consumers? Is it fair is to charge those who do not need the low latency?

That is what a 'communistic' approach to the Internet would do.

No, it is more fair to take a 'capitalistic' approach. Charge those who benefit from the increased service more than those who do not.

Sorry, This is sort of my first post on a discussion group. What is "flamebait"

"Communism" is a word that can have a wide variety of meanings to different people, and it comes with a lot of emotional baggage. Throwing out there like you did is guaranteed to make people bristle.

There are communists in the US who don't see themselves as enemies of freedom. They don't automatically equate the word "communism" with the the "red menace" mentality. To them, communism and/or socialism are positive, idealistic ways to organize society.

Then there are those who, upon hearing the word "communism," only think of its most terrible incarnations, i.e.: Lenin/Stalin; Naziism; Mao; Pol Pot; Castro; etc.

Like they've said in the BOL podcast, once the word "nazi" is thrown out in an accusatory way, the debate is basically over. Not literally over, just basically. (he he)

Your implication is clear, that it should be a given, that in any case, communism is always a bad thing. And then you explicitly state that when a free market, capitalist, democratic country starts slipping down the slippery slope of what could be called "over-regulation", then they've actually become communist.

I see your point, and my initial impression is that it actually may have some merit. I'll try to phrase it another way, let me know if its close to what you meant.

In certain respects, a hallmark of communism in action is that it will enforce regulations designed to produce an outcome, that is, that everyone is guaranteed equal access or equal rewards. Not competing for advantage based on investment, competition, innovation; not allowing the PRINCIPLE of allowing the free and unpredictable interplay between provider and consumer; not allowing free markets to play themselves out.

But rather, using the power of the state, i.e., a small number of political elites, to dictate what they think the correct outcome should be.

In your assessment, "Net Neutrality" legislation demands that the will of the consumer via the free markets be secondary to what politicians feel is a fair result.

Many would disagree with your point. Flamebait would be stating your opinion in a way that is likely to cause strong emotional responses, especially in people that disagree with you. They would give you a bit more credence if you said something like:

"I'm afraid that the Net Neutrality legislation, the way its written, smacks of too much state control. To me it just feels like we're creeping towards socialistic ideas and I'm more of a free market guy myself."

Remember, this site may be read by people who are strong proponents of socialism. Many may live in countries that have been more socialist-leaning for decades.

Ddub, I wouldn't have been able to put it any better, great explanation.

So, you would consider this forum a "socialist leaning" forum?

Let me express it this way. I would say that when posts to this forum are made that DO express an economic ideal that the majority of those who make such posts are not free-market thinkers.

Does that automaticly make them socialists? No. The world (and it's people) are too complex to oversimplify into 'capitalist' vs. 'socialist'.

Sorry for double posting, but ddubb response is the most intelligent thing I have heard in these forums in a long while. Your correct, I am very skeptical of "government intervention" on the Internet, even if it may seem for a good cause.

A shame the software running the CNET forums does not contain a "sticky" feature where you can take posts like ddubb's that are so completely on-the-mark and succinct in explaining things that they become semi-permanent fixtures at the top of the forum list. The Warcraft website is a good example of this. Anyhow, great explanation ddubb.

-Kevin

Lets nominate him for a T-shirt!

Nominate him for a tshirt, lets nominate him for president!