- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Maparent joined Debatewise
- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Loretta voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Soominchoi joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Erinliddicoat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Nemothe Emo joined Debatewise
- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
- + Erinliddicoat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Jiwoo Cj 1127 voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Erinliddicoat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Erinliddicoat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
THE INTERNET SHOULD NOT BE TRAFFIC NEUTRAL
Ten percent of internet users hog 75% of internet bandwidth, leading to slower download speeds for everyone else. Those uploading videos and high-resolution photos to multimedia sharing sites like Flickr and YouTube effectively slow down the speed at which everyone else can check their e-mail. So, should such traffic be treated as low-priority to make the web better for the majority?
The internet should not be traffic neutral
Yes, because... Multiple TCP connections are unfair
Allowing peer-to-peer programmes to open multiple connections to the outside world to boost download speeds is unfair on those whose e-mail checking, basic web-browsing habits open only one connection at a time.
See history of changes to this point
The internet should not be traffic neutral
Yes, because... Everyone should be treated equally
While equality could well be argued in favour of net neutrality, in reality it doesn't work out like that.
In the 'neutral' web, priority is given to a minority who disrupt other people's browsing habits. This is unfair,and unequal - the minority get a degraded service for not being prolific file sharers.
See history of changes to this point
The internet should not be traffic neutral
Yes, because... A minority shouldn't disrupt the majority
If bus routes were changed to the detriment of most people just to service a couple of individuals, there would be outcry. Yet this is effectively happening on the internet, with a small group causing disruption to the majority of surfers through their greedy up- and downloading habits.
The internet should not be traffic neutral
No, because... It is the ISPs' responsibility to improve the network
ISPs cannot do magic with technology. The internet is not a system which will handle the nearly unlimited video traffic that is just getting started. Look at the big plans media companies have for sending movies over the internet. It's not like TV, where everyone gets the same signal. You can't multiply all of that times the number of persons using the internet. Paying for the data would add more common sense to the subject.
Employing traffic shaping is simply a get-out clause for internet service providers (ISPs), when they should be reacting to demand for faster and higher-capacity networks. Rather than invest in the framework their customers are obviously calling out for, and which is needed in the era of YouTube, iPlayer et al, they are preventing the masses from truly embracing the web as it should be enjoyed.
Vote on this point: It is the ISPs' responsibility to improve the network
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: The internet should not be traffic neutral
Modified:
06 Oct 2008
Point 1. Multiple TCP connections are unfair
Allowing peer-to-peer programmes to open multiple connections to the outside world to boost download speeds is unfair on those whose e-mail checking, basic web-browsing habits open only one connection at a time.
Point 2. Everyone should be treated equally
While equality could well be argued in favour of net neutrality, in reality it doesn't work out like that.
In the 'neutral' web, priority is given to a minority who disrupt other people's browsing habits. This is unfair,and unequal - the minority get a degraded service for not being prolific file sharers.
Point 3. A minority shouldn't disrupt the majority
If bus routes were changed to the detriment of most people just to service a couple of individuals, there would be outcry. Yet this is effectively happening on the internet, with a small group causing disruption to the majority of surfers through their greedy up- and downloading habits.
Point 1. It is the ISPs' responsibility to improve the network
Employing traffic shaping is simply a get-out clause for internet service providers (ISPs), when they should be reacting to demand for faster and higher-capacity networks. Rather than invest in the framework their customers are obviously calling out for, and which is needed in the era of YouTube, iPlayer et al, they are preventing the masses from truly embracing the web as it should be enjoyed.
ISPs cannot do magic with technology. The internet is not a system which will handle the nearly unlimited video traffic that is just getting started. Look at the big plans media companies have for sending movies over the internet. It's not like TV, where everyone gets the same signal. You can't multiply all of that times the number of persons using the internet. Paying for the data would add more common sense to the subject.