Survey: The meaning of the Net neutrality decision

Survey: The meaning of the Net neutrality decision

Summary: We're taking a show of hands. Do you think the net neutrality legislation that appears to be headed for approval is good for the Net or bad?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
18

I'm taking a survey, which you can answer in comments. Do you think the vote to exclude Net neutrality language from upcoming Senate legislation is good for the Net or bad? Answer in comments by responding to the story, not other comments (let's keep it brief, please see my example in the first comment).

Also, if you would include your job category, such as "engineer" or "marketing," etc., we can assess the sentiment based on those criteria, too. 

I'll count up and report the results after 48 hours and again, later, if votes keep coming in. 

I'm off to Gnomedex, will report on feelings there, too. 

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

18 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Bad.

    It's bad for the Net.

    Mitch Ratcliffe
    Software entrepreneur, blogger, investor
    Mitch Ratcliffe
  • Very bad

    It will serve to strengthen monopolies and will benefit the cable/phone companies at the expense of pretty much everyone else. Moreover, every time the Web has been segregated in this manner, the "privileged" services eventually become a wasteland, tying up valuable resources and adding to routing headaches for ever smaller and more clueless audiences (cf. AOL or MSN, both of which have contracted User Ebola).
    kurt_cagle
  • Ole Mossback

    VERY BAD
    We lose freedom and privacy. United Corporations of America gain power and money.
    Cyberneticus Dinosaurus
    • VERY BAD

      is how I filled out the previous message box
      Cyberneticus Dinosaurus
  • BAD and WRONG (to the point of being satanic).

    We've already seen what will happen thanks to AOL and DearAOL. Imagine waking up one day with suits surrounding your bed telling you "Stop thinking that way. That's how our competitors/opponents think so we're going to block all emails and sites that promote that subversive propaganda and promote those who support us." :p

    Clerical temp (currently a "Document Conversion Clerk") with way to much tech knowledge for his own good.
    Mr. Roboto
  • The entire legislation is horrible

    Net neutrality is only the tip of the iceberg. Lack of build-out requirements will also tremendously hurt the consumer. I've already called my US Senator to let him know if he supports the bill, I'll be voting against him in the next election no matter what. My Congressman has already lost my vote due to HR5252 - the COPE leglislation in the house.

    A Senior IT Exec
    wininpitt
  • Net Neutrality

    Bad decision not to have that language in there. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't, with big business gien the chance.
    I have noticed a change allready in search engines where websites I might be looking for are not listed on Google or ASK or MSN or Yahoo.
    If people want to pay for faster internet, let them, but don't discrimminate the web sites, just the size of the pipe, as it is now.
    Stacy Stark
    stacystark9
  • Good

    I am an IT Data Analyst.

    The 'net is changing (as all technology does) the new telecom law would allow that change. It won't be the 'same old net' but that is a good thing. Keeping government out of things when there is no clear and present need is always a good thing.
    Jack.L.Swayze.Sr9
  • Bad

    I think it will be the start of the monetizing of the web. I think what we're going to see eventually is the web degenerating into an entertainment stream. It will exist solely for the distribution of music and video--no service provider is going to want to "waste" bandwidth on something that's not an active source of revenue. I hope I'm wrong.
    ebrke
  • BAD big time

    BAD big time
    garysecor
  • Bad

    Too much leeway for profitable discrimination (which is really what this is all about; charging each user the maximum he is willing and/or able to pay). Since I'm a telecommuter who connects to a company VPN daily, I consider my employer to be one of the potential "squeezees", and thus have selfish reasons for favoring "network neutrality" legislation.
    John L. Ries
  • Bad! Bad! Bad!

    If you think "the Great Firewall of China" is an attrocity, think about what AT&T might decide to do to email addressed to me from someone on Comcast's network? Or, what about my access to websites like Truthout.org, where there is likely to be criticism of AT&T for selling customer (my) usage data because they are my ILEC? I do not believe for one nanosecond that ANY corporation with a "choke hold" on my Internet access will necessarily have MY best interests in mind when, as my ISP, they set up their Domain Name Servers and routers.

    This is how the infrastructure of the Internet, created by DARPA, designed to provide ubiquitous high speed data communication, built to survive a nuclear war, and paid for by taxpayers like us, will be "leased" back to us, to make us pay for it again and again.
    rgetsla
  • Question should be "should the sale of QoS be outlawed"

    When you ask a bogus question to begin with, you can pretty much get any answer you want.
    georgeou
    • No, George, yours would be a spun question

      See the extensive discussion in my postings and the comments
      there -- no one is saying QoS should be banned.
      Mitch Ratcliffe
      • No, you're saying you can't charge for it

        No, you're saying you can't charge for it, which means it's banned for all intensive commercial purposes. Stop being a hypocrite when you keep making these ignorant statements that "all packets are equal". You along with the DPSProject people don?t want Net Neutrality, you really want Net Stupidity. But to make it half way passable, you keep pushing the Markey and Snowe that outlaws the sale of QoS.

        If you want to project this asinine idea that ?all packets are equal?, then at least stick with it. You know very well what you and your friends want, which is no QoS. Stop trying to pass it off as ?we?ll allow it so long as you don?t charge for it?.
        georgeou
        • George, read the recent postings

          You aren't even following the discussion, which has included the
          idea that QoS can be charged for, but in such ways that don't allow
          for sweetheart deals on the backbone.

          And cut the "asinine" crap. Do you actually *talk* to people like this
          or is it just a literary tick? If you want to have a debate, be
          respectful and informed, not to mention less arrogant toward
          others because you think you're the only one in the discussion who
          has ever looked at a routing table.
          Mitch Ratcliffe
          • I'll quote the Markey and Snowe-Dorgan proposals

            When you make statements like "all packets are equal", I couldn't really think of a better official word that isn?t banned on the public airwaves. Your definition of a "sweet heart" deal is so vague (not to mention it isn't mentioned in the Markey or Snowe-Dorgan proposals) that it outlaws the sale of QoS. You want to be reasonable? Here's the quote for you and it's in plain English.

            Markey proposal:
            (3) if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service;

            Snowe-Dorgan proposal:
            (5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization;


            That means if an ISP gives one person QoS, they have to give everyone QoS. If you can?t understand that, then you?ve got some other issues to deal with. But it?s about as plain as day to the average person that your brand of Net Neutrality outlaws the sale of QoS and SLA (Service Level Agreements).
            georgeou
          • So, your answer is "Good""?

            George, I've explained in another thread that you are conflating
            backbone services with last-mile and dedicated-circuit services,
            where QoS is and still will be perfectly legal.

            This thread is a simple poll. I take it that your vote will be "good"?
            Mitch Ratcliffe