posted
US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.
Pros Among other things, this aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees.
Cons Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.
"telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway".
Critics of the amendment said it would bring in unnecessary government regulation.
They fear their sites will become hard to reach or that they will be forced to pay to guarantee that they can get through to web users.
------------------------------------------------ Meg Whitman, eBay chief executive, e-mailed more than one million members of the auction site asking them to back the idea of net neutrality. Google boss Eric Schmidt called on staff at the search giant to support the idea.
web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that the net faced entering a "dark period" if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise.
I'm still trying to find more information about this. At first glance this seems like a serious issue that we consumers should be very concerned about, or is this just normal economics and we really have nothing to worry about?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Cable Company, in hopes of keeping its cable customers, will have the right to refuse Netflix new fast pipelines. This will stifle downloadable viewing for you and me.
Joe Phone Company will have the right to refuse to allow any but its own phone services to use its faster and more stable pipelines, stifling this new technology and keeping phone prices high.
Joe Congressman needs to get his expensive high speed video messages to the people. To do so the cable and phone companies offer him free use of their fastest pipelines if he votes the right way. If not, well good luck spreading your message at dial-up speeds.
Its not about locking out NRA web-sites if the companies disagree with them. Its not about offering faster service to those who want to pay for it. Its making sure those services are available to anyone with the funds, and that all clients, regardless of content, are treated fairly.
This is the information age. Those who control the flow of information control the age.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would think there'd be some sort of conflict of interest with Senator Joe owning the cable and phone companies in question in the bill.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raven: please explain - you are saying derregulation would do exactly the opposite? It would put too much power in the hands of individuals over the flow of information?
What about censorship?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Joe Phone Company will have the right to refuse to allow any but its own phone services to use its faster and more stable pipelines, stifling this new technology and keeping phone prices high."
Dan, I am a bit confused at this one. Are you saying faster pipelines for telephone service or internet service? IOW, could you please rephrase for my understanding.
"Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use. "
Incorrect, what the fear is is that net providers start deciding which sites work better, not that they won't work at all. People will still be able to access all sites, just not with the same type of ease.
The biggest downside is for internet businesses, or people who generate revenue from websites, in having to pay more for people to have easy access to their site, and then to the consumer, who'll probably have to pay more for that higher tier as well. Thats the issue. Is that ISP's go free range on collecting huge ammounts of money from both ends when they don't need to at all.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SOrry, I couldn't remember the phrase VOIP for over the net phone service. The phone company has hard phone lines running to your house. They get paid for your use of them. VOIP could drastically cut into thier client base as Mary VOIP company offers services for half the price. However, for that service to be as clear and reliable as your standard phone lines, it needs to use the new faster pipelines. Joe Phone Company just won't sell them that service, or will sell it to that at such an enourmous rate that Mary VOIP will have to raise her rates to more than standard phone rates. The result, less competition and the return to Telephone Monopoly.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incorrect, what the fear is is that net providers start deciding which sites work better, not that they won't work at all. People will still be able to access all sites, just not with the same type of ease.
At least two telco executives have made public statements to the effect that Google shouldn't be allowed to make money from the telco's customers without forking money over to the telco.
Despite the fact that Google is paying someone, somewhere for its connectivity and the customers are paying for their connectivity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"At least two telco executives have made public statements to the effect that Google shouldn't be allowed to make money from the telco's customers without forking money over to the telco."
So... they said they won't allow access at all to Google because of this?
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They think they should be able to deny their customers access to Google unless Google pays them.
My libertarian streak says they should be allowed to do that, as long as they don't claim to be selling Internet access anymore. Internet access means access to the internetwork that lets everyone talk to everyone.
Realistically, government regulation is necessary, I think.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard something about a Judiciary commitee working on something that would let anti-trust law cover such things as a complete shutdown of access to web-sites...But I can't remember any specifics.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's the web. There really shouldn't be censorship.
The FCC was originally established to do exactly what this proposal says, keep telecommunication and radio organized, but the thing is they don't do that job anymore. Now their attention is all on responding to indecency complaints and expanding their beaurocracy, and nothing would help that more than if they could make themselves the "internet cops." I would actually be all in favor of a federally regulated system if it increased access to the internet for public services, communities, education, etc... but knowing our political system, I doubt increasing efficiency will end up being the standing order of the day.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Despite the fact that Google is paying someone, somewhere for its connectivity and the customers are paying for their connectivity.
The old saying goes: "Posession is 9/10ths of the law." Put them in a position where money is at stake, and corporations will support almost any policy that means a bigger paycheck, if there is little risk involved.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
It seems to me that real question is this: Can the governemtn guarantee free access to the internet? If so, what does the governemnt need to do to guarantee that?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dag, you're the expert on this so correct me where I'm wrong....
I was under the impression that ISPs and telcos had "Common Carrier Protection"
That means if someone D/Ls kitty porn over their computer, the phone company and the ISP (if they're a different company) can NOT be sued or charged for providing the tool the person used to commit the illegal act.
But in exchange for that protection, they can't edit or limit what is carried on their lines.
If they start charging more for google or yahoo, aren't they endangering common carrier protection?
posted
I actually know next to nothing about that aspect, Pix.
BTW, there's a line in the article that there's little evidence the telcos intend to start charging the popular web sites or limiting access to them by customers. Two telco heads have stated they intend to do this. That's not significant evidence?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wait a sec. Let me check. Did I just- Huh. Let me run through that again.
I agree with Dagonee.
There are instances where, in narrow markets, "competing" enterprises actually turn out to work in collusion. This has the danger to become such an instance. That the media interests of ISPs have been working to exaggerate the amount of competition that actually exists in these "competitive" markets doesn't seem like a good sign.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
