There’s a lot of talk about net neutrality, or the idea that regardless of the type of information it should be treated equally (e.g. not slowed down) by ISPs. There are arguments on both side of the fence, both for and against the idea. Google (probably net neutrality’s biggest proponent) and Verizon are all for it, but there seems to be a lot of people against it. Personally, I don’t know which side I’m on, I see value in both propositions.

As a consumer I want my content delivered as fast as possible, in fact I want it sooner than that! I don’t want any of my data slowed down for the sake of other’s data, but there are drawbacks to that. See, when my content is not slowed down (say a bit torent) then I’m happy. The only thing is, I’ve downloaded maybe three bit torrents in my whole internet career. What should that tell me? It should mean that I wouldn’t mind if bit torrents are slowed down for the sake of all the other data out there, but what when my data is slowed down (after all, bit torrents aren’t the only thing that are affected by net neutrality) what when my pictures are considered a lower priority by my ISP? As far as I know image files aren’t hindered in any way, but they do take up a lot of bandwidth, perhaps my ISP would consider limiting their speed.

So that’s why I’m not sure where I stand. Yes, I want my data faster, but does that mean I’m for net neutrality or against it? I think that depends on who you ask. What are your thoughts?

I'm against any corporation or government controlling bandwidth speeds. I already pay my ISP for a certain speed... If I don't like it I can get a different ISP. Let the free market work it out. It's worked pretty good so far.
Mark Richardson on 2010-08-16 16:31:21.0