Net neutrality has been a pretty hot topic lately. There are those on both sides of the debate that point out some very good arguments. When discussing the topic, one must note that the debate is over net neutrality as written and not the concept. Of course users want the concept, but if the bill is written in favor of ISPs, you as a user have lost.
One part of the bill is that ISPs have the option to "prevent the unlawful transfer of content" as well as have "reasonable network management". Now these seem pretty harmless because no one is advocating to pay a low fee and cost the ISP more money for bandwidth than they can handle or to rip off as many copyrights as possible because it's easy to do.
Content Management System
The problem lays in the fact that these two phrases are what ISPs typically use to justify throttling or even shutting off the ability to torrent. With this language it seems as if doing so would be legally justified.
Many have a negative view on torrents as immediately the thought of illegal file sharing comes to mind. While there is illegal file sharing through a torrent there also is sharing through http and ftp. It would be like shutting down the post office or UPS for everyone because someone did something wrong or illegal with it. It would be like closing off a street forever because one time an illegal activity was done on it.
True neutrality allows users to have access to various forms of bandwidth like a torrent which can save quite a bit on costs if you are legally sharing large files and folders between client computers or peers however the congestion on the internet of the those sharing the files can slow down the system due to lack of compression and networks not being built out.
On the pirating issue, if torrents are blocked, they will move elsewhere and still occur. The blocking of them won't solve the copyright problems faced with digital media on the internet.
---------
No comments:
Post a Comment