An Interesting Debate on Net Neutrality

[Giovanni]

This is a debate between Mike McCurry and Paul Misener.

http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=261

It's over an hour and a half long all said, but it is well worth watching.

I wonder what your opinions are on the subject, but to me it looks like Paul Misener pwning the fuck out of Mike McCurry.

[Gorriller]

I believe that the net should be neutral. But I also believe that the carriers should be able to charge extra for NEW features, like voice or video.

[Mercenary]

Carriers should not impose charges on web users/masters based on bandwitdh space. They would be able to totally block out sites that dont pay them. Damn coporations another way to suck our money from us. IF that bill goes through theres going to be some major protests if not rioting.

[Gorriller]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Carriers should not impose charges on web users/masters based on bandwitdh space. They would be able to totally block out sites that dont pay them. Damn coporations another way to suck our money from us. IF that bill goes through theres going to be some major protests if not rioting.

What the heck would the site pay a carrier for bandwidth that has already been paid for!

See, it works like this:
You pay your ISP (A) to carry your traffic from your computer to the next ISP (B).
The next ISP (B) gets paid by your ISP for the connection between them,
and so on to the core (C).

The web site pays their hosting service or ISP to carry their traffic to the next ISP (D).
That ISP (D), pays the next ISP(E) to carry all their traffic,etc.etc.
Until the traffic reaches the core (C).

At the core(C), the traffic retraces the trail of the other path, which is already paid for.

Now, which carrier or ISP didn't get paid? Only the carrier or ISP that didn't carry any traffic for you or the web site.

Why should the web site pay for the bandwidth to carry your traffic from the core to you? You already paid for it!

JGT
That

[Mercenary]

Hmm I guess I didnt make it clear. Sorry about that. I meant it as in speed for example. Website A and Website B pay, lets say, $50 a month. But now the ISP wants more money and charges A and B an additional fee that is optional. Now A decides that it is willign to spend more money. B doesnt want to. Now A is able to be accessed faster than B even though they both have the same bandwitdh. I don't know much about sever-PC so if this is wrong just ignore it.

[Gorriller]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Hmm I guess I didnt make it clear. Sorry about that.

No problem!

I meant it as in speed for example. Website A and Website B pay, lets say, $50 a month. But now the ISP wants more money and charges A and B an additional fee that is optional. Now A decides that it is willign to spend more money. B doesnt want to. Now A is able to be accessed faster than B even though they both have the same bandwitdh. I don't know much about sever-PC so if this is wrong just ignore it.

I believe I see what you are trying to say. Just because A paid, B should not be punished. Correct?

While it is possible to make one site faster to access than another site with the same bandwidth, it is much more difficult and expensive. It is just easier to have sites pay for the bandwidth they want.

JGT