I don't buy that one bit. Equating server overload to an internet that allows the ratcheting down of access to certain content or sites? Not the same thing at all. And to say that net neutrality will prevent the building of the "fast lane" misses the fact that market forces and gradual technological breakthroughs will bring about those fast lanes regardless."First off, network providers aren't going to be cutting off content. The FCC already made that clear in an August 2005 policy statement when it outlined four principles ensuring that you'll be able to access any (legal) content you want, period.
Despite this, the folks at It's Our Net wrote, "If you are a consumer ... you will have a degraded slower Internet experience with certain websites. Some websites will even be unavailable unless additional fees are paid."
That's just not true. Content isn't going to be closed off tomorrow any more than it is today — and we don't have a Net neutrality law now.
Will there be speed differences from site to site? Of course, just as there are now. Haven't you ever found a site that's slowed to a crawl from a ton of traffic? Getting a message "Our servers are overloaded" isn't a cry for a more-regulated Net, it's a cry for that site to buy more bandwidth.
You'll hear that Net providers will put non-payers in an "Internet slow lane," while only the folks who pay will get to go full speed ahead — as suggested by The New York Times.
That's one way of looking at it. But it's more accurate to say that Net neutrality would prohibit companies from building fast lanes. In other words, it would force everyone into the slow lane."
Does this guy just not get it or am I missing something?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ ... ited_x.htm
