Network neutrality - Have you heard?
Have you heard yet about Net Neutrality? In a nutshell, your ISP (Comcast, BellSouth, AT&T) could limit or restrict access to sites, content or incoming messages that they decide - not you. Net Neutrality enforces OPEN access to ALL content unilaterally.
Some broadband providers proposed to start charging content providers in return for higher levels of service. Packets originating from providers who pay the additional fees would in some fashion be given better than “neutral” handling, while those content providers who do not pay the higher fees would get a lesser level of service. Given this ability to accelerate the handling of selected packets, the service providers would perhaps give Quality of Service guarantees to given senders or recipients. This points out that once the net moves away from common carrier rules there are at least two levels of pricing: the price an ISP charges consumers for access and the price the ISP could charge Websites by varying bandwidth.
Videos about Net Neutrality
Advocates of “non-neutrality” point to advantages with respect to rationing what perhaps will be scarce bandwidth. Indeed, the topic was opened because of what may be a substantial increase in bandwidth consumption as multi-media uses of the Internet expand. Carriers want content providers who support bandwidth-intensive multi-media Internet traffic to pay the carriers a premium to support further network investments.
On the other hand, advocates of network neutrality observe that any practice that shapes the transmission of bits in the transport layer based on application designs will undermine the design for flexibility of the transport. Others claim collecting premium fees from certain “preferred” customers would distort the market for Internet applications in favor of larger and better-funded content providers and against small providers. They argue for banning such financial arrangements, even if those payments might offset total network operating costs ultimately charged to consumers. There is also the question of the service impact on the end user who has purchased broadband access from a carrier, only to experience differing response times in interacting with various content providers, some of whom paid the carrier a “premium” and some who did not.
This article contains material from the Wikipedia article “Network neutrality“
I agree with you that Net Neutrality is an important debate, but I’m not sure I agree entirely with your description of the issue.
The Economist a few weeks back had a very accurate, in my opinion, description of the issue that I’d like to share with you. I’ll link you to a blog which has the article posted on it, and quote a bit of it to you directly. http://www.techliberation.com/archives/040941.php
I apologize for the length:
“For a start, the internet is not, in fact, neutral today. Fast broadband connections already cost more than slower ones, for consumers and businesses alike. As well as buying fast pipes and building huge “server farms”, big companies such as Google and eBay also pay extra for specialist “content delivery” services, such as Akamai, to make their websites download even faster. None of this has hampered innovation or hurt small companies.
It is also rather odd to see internet activists, who are generally suspicious of government intervention, calling for regulators to step in and pass new laws in the name of freedom. Laws mandating net neutrality could, in fact, do a great deal of harm. Ensuring “neutrality” could require regulators to interpose themselves in all kinds of agreements between network operators, content providers and consumers. Content-delivery services, such as Akamai’s, might suddenly become illegal. Strict rules could also hinder the development of new services that depend on being able to distinguish between different types of traffic. And it does make sense, after all, to be able to prioritise telephony and video traffic over e-mails. “We are talking about some people getting a better service if they are prepared to pay for it,” says Forrester’s Mr Godell.”
I think the article really gets to the heart of the issue–handing control over to government entities really could cause a lot of problems for the internet and be far more dangerous than leaving the internet as is right now–in the hands of the consumers. I work with the Hands Off The Internet coalition and would invite you to check out our blog on net neutrality at Http://handsoff.org.
I’m very, very skeptical on the arguments in favor of “Net Neutrality”, mostly for two reasons:
1. I can’t think of any industry that has benefited after having MORE government regulation, and the cost always filters down to the consumer. If we have free long distance, free checking accounts, and cheap airfare it’s because government was persuaded to deregulate phone, banking, and airlines. Having governments set “fair, even prices” ususally means we get stuck with the very highest price possible.
2. If a company is responsible for massive amounts of bandwidth usage, it’s only fair they pay more than others. Asking carriers to charge the same for different customers regardless of how much those customers cost them is not just an attack on their freedom to set prices at market level, it’s also effectively subsidizing the big bandwidth hogs at the expense of the little guy. In other words - that little guy would have had to pay a lot less for service if he didn’t have to pay on the same scale as the bandwidth hog. They ARE different and there’s nothing wrong in charging them differently.
On the other hand, “Network Neutrality” is an EXCELLENT term to market an idea you’re in favor of.
I wouldnt want to see this happening to the internet. Its like a highway. Sure lets get rid of all the cars that drive below 40mph and let all those who have fancy sports cars get 100mph without restrictions. Oh but of course you can only listen to the only station the we provide on the radio and you can only see our ads. Oh yeah and as long as we control the flow of traffic you have to cough up the money too. The Telecoms want to make this the new rule for the internet. I understand they want to be ahead and have enough to create growth and newer technologies but leaving out many for the benefit of those who have more money is totally unfair. We need to leave the internet alone as it is free to do all things lawful. Keep it Neutral. Keep it for Everyone. I’m on the side of Google and Microsoft on this and not on the monopolizers who just want more control.
They already have control of your cell phone, local phone, long distance, and now they want to control your internet.