Net Neutrality?

[INdemo]

I guess I dont understand all of these regulating proposals by the FCC but If AT&T dont like it it must be ok..It is still regulation the Internet though?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050606160.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[Pholus]

1. Yes, it is.

But the point is that without all that evil regulation the carriers want to move to a business model where they to have the right to block traffic or give preferential treatment as they wish. There are some technical reasons why sometimes you need to manage traffic but the beancounters are really seeing it as an additional way to make money by adding premium services to your bill. Of course, you the user are not getting anything new you're just paying extra.

Imagine a tiered pricing structure -- if you want access to YouTube, you can subscribe to your local provider and for a small extra charge they'll make sure that the site works for you. The same for FaceBook, eBay, news sites (kind of the ultimate paywall and probably pitched as the way to make journalism profitable again), everything. VOIP only through the providers own service with community created services blocked.

Now imagine what they could do to a site mildly critical of their business practices or a political candidate they like.

So, let's have some regulation please. Carriers should be required by law to treat all packets the same regardless of the type and let the internet connect people.

[Syrinx]

2. +1

:thumbsup:

It's pro-consumer regulation, as opposed to a corporate free-for-all.

[RKP5637]

4. Exactly, well said! Hopefully citizens are waking up more and more and

getting a clue as to what many of these corporations are about today... greed, money, power and control at any cost. Little has to do with the wellness/success of the country and its citizens unless it impacts their bottom line. Hence, the need for good sound and fair regulation. This was a good summary you made. Hope it's OK with you if I copy the text and fwd it on to some of my friends that don't seem to understand what net neutrality is all about.

[onenote]

5. the sad thing is that even with net neutrality, the same thing can happen

The scenario you depict involves access to sites being blocked by the Internet Service Provider. But as likely, if not moreso, a business model, will involve content sites on the web blocking access to their sites unless you are a customer of their preferred ISP. Its actually happening today. If you want to view the content on ESPN3 (formerly ESPN360), you can't just log on to your ISP and go to their site unless your ISP has agreed to pay a fee to ESPN. That fee, of course, is going to be passed along not just to the folks who actually go to the ESPN3 site, but to everyone. How long before sites like youbute etc decide to move to this bundled model? And net neutrality won't do a thing to stop this practice.

[Scuba]

3. Want Rupert Murdoch to decide which sites get high speed service, and which don't?