Net Neutrality is irrespective of these issues. The issue of Net neutrality deals about prioritizing one bit over the other. One data packet over the other.

For example if data from Gmail and Hotmail both come in the queue, then an ISP has the power of prioritizing Gmail over Hotmail. So despite of Network congestion, GMail’s service will come out smooth. With Net Neutrality laws ISPs will be forced to use FCFS or some other non-discriminatory technology to transfer the data.

I mean imagine this, your net is really slow, but somehow GMail gets awesome speed. Unfortunately this example does not have emotional appeal. Have this one, your net is slow during the peak hours, but your stock market updates are coming out in time to you. Or since you have paid, so your daughter’s live video feed from her dorm room is coming out in real time.

Telecom companies won’t reduce the speed of your Internet that every website you visit will be slow, because that will incentivise you to not ge their services at all, rather:
1) Your regular data will come at regular speed, that is, if its peak hours, then it will be slow, if its off peak then it will be fast.
2) The web services which pay more to the ISPs will be continously fast even in peak or off-peak hours.
3) The non-paying competing websites will continue to perform lousily in peak hours.

The point is, no ISP will block this blog, because its pointless, this blog does not represent some sort of heavy payment company to the ISP.
No ISP will block any News website or anything like that either, because again, that’s something users require.
But commercial web applications and web services will suffer in terms of performance because of this.
Again no ISP will block anything rather only consider it as a regular traffic or deprioritize it.
For example, Google search will be faster than Yahoo search, or vice versa. GMail will be faster than Yahoo Mail.
Orkut might be faster than Facebook. AOL videos will be streamed quicker than Youtube videos.

Why? Because there is a competition between these two entities these both entities are making MASSIVE amount of money off the Internet, these revenues will come down to the web content publishers.

No ISP will block the websites on a paid Internet connection, but only on highly sponsered free Internet connections competiting web services will be blocked.

Now would you mind using an Internet connection if Hotmail is not available, or very slow to access if its sponsored completely by GMail and is free?

I mean does that mean i can go out tomorrow and take a video camera and kill a few people and put it on the net??? Or maybe go out and rape someone

That sounds like a very lame argument. Its a crime of murder, and rape respectively, it has nothing to do with the fact that the video was uploaded on the Internet, in fact its like announcing the crime.

What has internet regulation to do with the fact that people are killing and raping each other?

To me its means the net should not be able to give opion on a subject. If i want to talk about my religious or political convictions i should be allowed, without what i say being censored, and bits cut out.

It means various stuff to various people. Technically Network Neutrality means every bit transferred through the net must be treated equally. Without Net Neutrality the ISPs have the power to slow down any traffic to prioritize a more paying content provider.

It has nothing to do with censorship because at least in America, Americans hate censorship, any company who censors shit is seen as dictatorial and will quickly lose its business.

Its MADE about censorship by the marketing team of Google and Yahoo. If net neutrality laws are in effect govt will have a power over the Internet, in the name of say “neutralize” the Internet, they will restrict stuff. Even Supreme Court says that free speech in America does not means people have a right to transfer and view Child porn. So it won’t be surprising that govt might start restricting content.

The pro-Net neutrality perspective:

Internet allows me to express myself freely, we cannot let these profit seeking companies restrict my expression of freedom!
Save the Internet! Save the world!

The “Don’t regulate the Internet” or “Hands off the Internet” perspective:

There cannot be a justification of govt regulation of the Internet.
Soon mass quantity of data will be flowing on the Internet, to support that billions of dollars will be needed, the telecom companies want this cost to be shifted to large content providers like Google and Yahoo, but they don’t wanna bear this cost, so they have made it about free speech and censorship.
If they don’t bear this cost, the consumers will bear it. IF you watch a lot of mass quantity Internet videos, but your neighbor does not, you both will bear the costs equally. If you have a baby monitoring system hooked up to your baby when you are at work, you cannot get priority over your neighbor’s porn movies on the network, because its a law now.

I think that their should be some way of monitoring the net to make sure people remain as safe as possible. Things that hurt people or abuse them should be banned like pedophilia sites and violence to other living things. I know their has been a raise of people using sites like YouTube to show home made videos of people beating others up or trying to do dangerous stunts that can injure themselves or innocent by standers, but the people who run these sites have a duty to monitor what is paced their. Not governments. It also seems that Mr & Mrs average also blame the net for teaching their children bad habits. It seems to be the done thing now a days to look at outside influences as reasons why today children are more violent or caring knives or stealing. It seems easy to blame not only the net but T.V and games. and i think this is what could harm the Internet. You get bands of people who when things go wrong would rather blame outside influences then themselves. It is so much easier to blame the game they played or the film they watched or the Internet site they accessed. It doesn’t seem to matter that the game was a 18 rated and its should be their parents who monitor what their children play. I know a shop would not sale a game of say 18 rating to a 6 or 7 year old but if their parents buy it then its their responsibility. Same with films we here have a 9pm watershed which basically stops programs with adult content before that time. Same with the net parents should know what their children are doing on the net they can block sites. But this seems to be forgotten. Its surprising how many rational people get stirred up about this type of thing. I suppose its more so when elections are coming round so much easier to shut sites down or even chat rooms like MSN has done here in the UK, it seems no one said parents should be responsible not the provider, and its a easier problem to solve then, inflation unemployment, and the million other things wrong. Use the unimportant things to cloud the real issues, after all most ordinary people don’t really understand economics’s

So i think the net should be able to police themselves, but it will also need a outside body to make sure that site do remove unsuitable material and fine them if they don’t. As far as net speed goes as demand grows then the net speed slows down, and companies that give cheaper deals or a faster speed net will be more popular so will run slower at peak times, i have a fast speed broadband but between 6pm and 9 pm its speed is reduced for high users so that people who only use net for a small amount of time can use the net without it being slow. I think the net is a fairly new way to communicate, and demand in some areas has out weighed availability, or the way to connect to net has not really been designed to handle the large demands. Phone lines where designed for one purpose, and now they are being asked to deal with a larger amount of traffic, and in some areas it may get worse as demand rises quicker then the ability to improve the system by using separate ways other then phone lines, like cable, but we must remember that some areas haven’t got electric, even here in UK a Island in Scotland has only just been connected to the National Grid, so things like having a Internet connection maybe lower on the list of needs.

The net can be used as a teaching medium, as access grows and computers get cheaper then people who may not have access to schools can also be given the chance of a proper education. It can be used a a chosen time, rather then a school day. So children or even adults can learn that may not have a chance normally through other commitments, having education or even just being able to read and write can open more doors. I know of people who have taught themselves another language by just using a dictionary, it was the sheer determination that pushed them on. The net also gives the chance to learn about other cultures not only by using the web, but by the chance of talking to people and hopefully it will help people get on with each other as well as getting information first hand from people who live in these countries. So maybe instead of moaning about government restricting access to net, i am sure most can still get to these sites by some backdoor, or the speed your Internet runs. Imagine what its like to be truly disadvantaged, that not only is you net filtered, but that your life is so controlled that if you do access a banned site or look at the wrong web site you could end up in jail or worse. People disappear every day. We are FREE to think and write what we want without fear of having our homes raided in the middle of the night and having our families hauled away, never to be seen again. I think fighting for that FREEDOM is more important. So we should count our blessings that we have the freedom to surf the net without fear and voice our opinions without fear of loosing our freedom

Have you even for a second, thought of the situations of private roads?

Can a private road owner charge equal for all vehicles running on his road irrespective of what vehicle or weight carried by the vehicle carries?
Or will the road owner take different charges from different vehicle users, like trucks with goods transport will pay different toll charges while a cycle user will pay different (may use free too). A car driver will pay higher than a scooter driver etc…

Doesn’t it sound genuine?
What is a net facility if it is not road to information?

And what is load on it? The search engines and websites are the transporters, information is load.

Obviously the ISPs have proper right to ask for different charges from different users dependent on the load they transports, or the usage they do of the road like internet services.
Now all seems ok. Obviously, why should a bicycle buyer pay same as a transport truck or driver is paying?

Yet, the deal can only be in accordance with the bargain between truck transporters and the road owner.

Road owner cannot force truck drivers to pay more than a cycle user. Though he can argue and bargain and if not accepted than he can deny transport buses/trucks through his roads.

At present, all over world wherever there are no private roads but just public roads, the government takes differentiated and discriminated charges from various users on roads depending on their vehicle and loads.

How can government make a law against its own procedure? It cannot and it should not. And if it do so, it is idiotic.

“NO ISP must do this, no ISP must do that”?

Because thats what the freedom is. If I have a contracct, it has a value, if the contract is breached, Either I will get the due (pre-decided) compensation and investment back, or the act will considered as treason.

About your rantings i am deleting every comment of yours because I don’t want your cult feelings to be shown here.

Yes anyone can be wrong at anytime and you are wrong here.

Accept it or don’t accept it it actually doesn’t matters much now.
 

goofle, yahoo, msn etc are bargaining to have same facilities as i have for my blog. They don’t want any better facilities. Seller cannot force them to buy better facilities (hence charge more) he cannot force them to pay higher for same facilities for which I pay less.
Still, seller can deny selling to yahoo, google and MSN, its his freedom, but can it afford that?
If it can, then he can sure deny giving yahoo google MSN to give any facility on same charges at which I use.

MSN, Google,Yahoo will surely innovate some better way or will break some ISP at some point which wont believe in this mad idea of self-hurt by ISP’s.

Simple thing is, it should be decided by Marker forces and not by government and Market forces will simply suggest the ISP to give up their unreasonable attitude. But if they denies giving up, they have proper right to harm their interests and profits by denying google,yahoo,msn etc to give normal services at normal price. But in noway the ISP can force search engines to take better service and pay high if they don’t want.
Nor ISP’s have any right to dislocate or slow down any site if they have accepted it in their normal domain as per contract.

You canot state that if you are earning Rs1 lakh per annum than you have to pay Rs 10000/- for using net, and if you are earning Rs 10000/- per annum than you have to pay Rs 10/- you cannot set price related to the buyers earning.

I just want to make this clear, do you think a seller has a RIGHT to charge any amount of money from anyone on any criteria or not?

Yahoo and google or anybody else will surely tackle the situation and solve their problems by someway or other, but that ISp will loose all its profits and will go down to limits of “vanished”.

I doesn’t matter what my bank balance is, if in a private air line, I want to buy an economic class ticket, then no air lines can deny me to buy the cheaper seat on account of my bank balance being high.
They may deny me that they don’t sell tickets to rich people, but they cannot force me to pay for the facilities of high class if I don’t want those facilities.
If in train i want to travell in general bogie, than the train owner cannot force me to pay for AC ticket just because i am rich.
Although he may say that he won’t sell general bogie tickets for rich.
That is, in his private train he can deny or bann general bogie tickets for rich guy and deny him to enjoy travelling in a general bogie. But he cannot force him to pay for AC ticket when he just don’t want to travell in AC bogie.

Nothing is wrong with me, whatever is wrong is wrong in your bug brain.

So you will demand higher price from a guy just because he is richer, it is similar to demanding higher insurance premiums from the rich guy just because he is rich for the same insurance policy.

Its idiotic.

You can provide various schemes for uploading material on net with various price tags and responding facilities you will provide.

You canot state that if you are earning Rs1 lakh per annum than you have to pay Rs 10000/- for using net, and if you are earning Rs 10000/- per annum than you have to pay Rs 10/- you cannot set price related to the buyers earning.

You can set price for the facilities you provide for a product.

Now its on the buyers choice if he buy lower facilities or better facilities.

For example, a hotellier may make different rooms with various facilities. like AC doublesuits, executives rooms, general rooms, etc, the buyer is free to buy whatever he feels the need of.

No hotellier can force a buyer to buy a special suit services for a period just because the buyer is rich.
No insurance company can charge higher premiums just because the client is rich.
Premiums can be decided only on risk factors involved, rent of hotel rooms can be discriminated only on the facilities involved.
If a rich person demands a general room, the hotellier will be entitled for only the price of general room used by the rich guy.
He cannot demand extra just because the guy was rich.
WHy are you getting so communistic?
Why do you want to loot rich?
You have some property, and you are selling it.
You decide the prices on the basis of facilities involved with the property. Higher facilities costs high, lower facilities costs low.
If a rich guy don’t want to buy higher facilities he want to use lower facilities only, you cannot force him to give away his right to buy higher facilities.
You may simply deny selling him though if you can afford it.

Furthermore, Why and how can an ISP force google or yahoo to buy better services than the normal by paying high?

Because its the ISPs property Google and Yahoo are using.

What is the need for yahoo or google to buy more speeding up width than a normal blog?

That’s a totally different question, and its technical in nature.

You cannot ask for more price just because the buyer is rich.

Sure you can, that is the whole point of property rights. What the hell is wrong with you? I can ask any price for my services from anyone, otherwise are you suggesting price control? And as long as you will keep on talking in terms of “CAN” and “CANNOT”, yes I can ask $100 to sell you my bike, and I can ask $100,000 from Bil Gate for the same bike. If you wanna use the words “SHOULD” “SHOULD NOT”(which are basically like suggestions, rather than morality implying words), then its a different issue.

Unless you are suggesting an Objective theory of value? That would be a different matter. Prices are always Subjective, and are governed by Subjective theory of value.

And I am not talking of Net neutrality, I am talking of Net neutrality in India.

Here is what happened, you got caught up into Google’s Net Neturality rhetoric “Net Neutrality is about Free Speech and Liberty. ISPs will get the power to censor websites without Net Neutrality”, now being a Libertarian you did take the right approach in saying that Govt must not be allowed to regulate the Internet, but you ended up defending Net Neutrality in this post, after all which Libertarian would support censorship. Unfortunately the truth is different. Network Neutrality does not mean no-govt censorship it means no-ISP censorship. Now your whole position on Net Neutrality is getting more and more convoluted while you are making vain attempt to avoid accepting that you made a mistake.

ISPs own their property and they can block anyone, and anybody’s service. Its their property right. I don’t think you need lessons in property rights, and please stop doing it in your vain attempts defend your position. Just accept the mistake and move on.

You again messed it up.

You should understand that there is no property right. And I am not talking of Net neutrsality, I am talking of Net neutrality in India. I am not opposing property rights, I am showing that its government who holds the rights and not the individual.

It even doesn’t matter if you make a net-neutrality law or not, government will keep exploiting the net because it is not neutral, so question of I supporting net neutrality law demand even doesn’t exists, My stand is, its useless, and there is no need of law. Market should decide it. Even if a single ISP provider decided to charge same from all traffic uploaders and broswers, it will gain maximum users because from the view of net-users it is more easy way rather than shifting their preferences. So even in a free-market, the market force will decide whether te trend should be of net neutrality or not.
And if the market demands net neutrality, then either the private ISPs will accept it or they are free to deny it but it will cause them loss of users and hence loss of profits.

There is no question of legislation over net-neutrality subject and there should not be.

Furthermore, Why and how can an ISP force google or yahoo to buy better services than the normal by paying high?
What is the need for yahoo or google to buy more speeding up width than a normal blog?
And if some site owner wants better facilities, it can surely use it.

The ISP’s can surely announce the various price tags with the services to be provided, an it will be freedom of the browser services to buy whatever slot they want to.

Just because Google makes high profits and people uses it, if any ISP is slowing it down, then it is wrong. The ISP provider may give better facilities for someone who pays more, it should not restrict google or other browsers b slowing their sites down even though they have paid for the normal.

And if they do so, then it is wrong.

You cannot ask for more price just because the buyer is rich.

If he is not demanding better facilities, you cannot force him to buy better facilities and pay high.

imagine the traffic with out rules.. signals

There is nothing to imagine, 90% of the Indian traffic I have dealt with follows no rule, and no signals. I know people grown up in West find it really hard to imagine what would people do without rules.

For example one of my friend could not believe that there are no cops in cars chasing people who speed in India, nor there are many comps trying to stop people from breaking rules. He kind of expected “complete Anarchy” in traffic in India. Yet, people in India manage themselves on road without that many accidents.

The reason why you think there will be chaos without rules is because you are made to follow so many rules you don’t like that if there is someone not watching you try to break the rule. But do you break the rule because you wanna harm other people?

Here is a youtube video of traffic in Hyderabad, which most of my statist, rule loving American friends have called fake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JYjG_S8XJM4

the concept of bring net free?  ask a net user..

do you pay for your internet connection? (ISPs)
do you pay to watch/get specific contents? (Paid docs/or movies/sex whatever)
how do you use internet in your regular life?  (what is that ur interested in ? )

a content provider has full rights to put it as paid or free. and service providers’ job is to provide the service and thats it. there could be soem legalities between the content and the service provider (usually low rate). but a user has nothing to do with it.

defending internet. well.. there is something called society.. everything runs on some rules.. imagine the traffic with out rules.. signals.  and thats the job of the authorities. rules could be altered/changed as the society grows.  same rule applies here too. what content is viewed at what time.. and where.. is important atleast as  a citizen we supposed to follow some rules.. and following rules doesnt always mean that your’ nt free.

Wouldn’t it be in the hands of ISP’s to avoid traffic of those sites and products which the government (the director of the ISP’s) finds offensive or ill for the society?

Well I disagree with that subjective viewpoint of private property rights.

ISPs have complete right to block any information access to you, because its their private property right. If you don’t like that, don’t subscribe to them, or buy your property and serve yourself with Net whichever way you like.
If you think govt controls ISPs, well then its a constitutional problem, and its on a much larger scale than that. The Free speech rights are not completely awarded to the individual in India.

Saying “ISPs must be neutral” is not the same as “Govt must stop restricting free speech”.
Free speech rights are basically private property rights. Your right to free speech does not extend on my property. If you wanna publish on my newspaper I have a full right to censor anything I want. In fact even in India you can’t go to a court claiming that a Newspaper or a TV channel refuse to print or voice your opinion calling it a violation of free speech.

Demanding ISPs must be neutral is like saying I must not dump by girlfriend, or I must not urinate on my carpet. Saying that I act on the instructions govt when I pee on my carpet, still does not give you a right to demand I must not pee on my carpet.

ISPs in India follow govt rules and regulations. I hardly think Network Neutrality is a substitute of the term “Free Speech”. So please for the love of God stop using Network Neutrality for Free Speech, nobody gives a damn to what is your definition of Network Neutrality, if you are making a blog post for common people, use commonly accepted terms, and according to that, Network Neutrality means govt interferences in private property. Net Neutrality is anti-private property.

Before you ask the question “Wouldn’t it be in the hands of ISP’s to avoid traffic of those sites and products which the government (the director of the ISP’s) finds offensive or ill for the society?” think whether it does even make any sense? Its already IN THE HANDS of ISPs to block any content they want, which they generally NOT DO it, rather do it whatever govt tells them to. Govt has in past made ISPs in India block numerous website. Net Neutrality IS NOT THE SOLUTION!

And in the end you gotta make it clear, are you an objectively pro-property rights person, or anti-property rights person, or a subjectively pro-property rights person. Because an objectively pro-Property rights person cannot say “I support property rights, but in this situation, since the things are quite in a mess, I am against property rights” that’s a subjective view of property rights.

Lets say if someone holds a gun on my head and demands to format my hard disk, then you can’t say that I don’t have a right to format my hard disk because someone is holding a gun on my head, rather you must always acknowledge my right to format my hard disk and must try to get rid of that gun.

It certainly is no different. That is why there should not be any legislation or law like that, No law no government can save it because government itself is the possible destroyer.

But the government is destroyer in both ways. In countries like India where there “actually” is no primary rights for the capital, where the government can force a private company to employ according to the government’s reservation policies, where even in private medical and engineering college government can force subsidies and scholarships to the minority students (minority based on religion”) there it is surely visible that ISP’s are in proper control of government and they meant to be.

And in such case, irrespective of any net-neutrality law, net is not free, neither for ISP providers, nor for the search engines and obviously not for the citizens. It is owned by government. And it won’t be surprising but surely a disaster if tomorrow someone like our present health minister starts dictating that there should not be any commercial promoting smoking, who will oppose it?

Wouldn’t it be in the hands of ISP’s to avoid traffic of those sites and products which the government (the director of the ISP’s) finds offensive or ill for the society?

Where a simple district collector can issue imprisonment of a cable operator just because on the demand of public, the operator tried to show a porne on the cable city channel after 12 am night. So what can the central government minister do if they decided to do against the freedom of internet? Will they remain neutral regarding Internet?