Net Neutrality

Anybody want to take a quick stab at:

- Explaining today's decision

- Explaining why I should care

- Explaining whether I should be outraged or happy

 

Not without launching into a big political pissing match.

Basically if you think monstrous multibillion-dollar corporations should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, you're going to have one very vehement opinion of the decision. If you don't, your opinion will be the opposite.

Especially considering the ramifications of their previous decision regarding "corporate rights."

And with that, we're off.

 

The phone company doesn't tell me who I can call. The electric company doesn't get a say in what I use the electricity for. Net Neutrality basically says that access to the internet be treated in the manner of a utility or common carrier.

 

So do the cable providers want to be able to be non-neutral because there's too much traffic or because they see it as a way to make money?

Would they charge me extra, or would Amazon.com, and sportsjournalists.com pay extra so that customers could access them quicker than their competitors?

Don't I already have to pay more now if I want fast service? So it's already not like a utility. I don't have to pay extra for good electrical service or phone service.

Do big companies like Amazon favor no-neutrality because it will allow them to dominate & keep out small players, or are they worried that cable companies will hold them hostage and make them pay more to be accessible to their customers?

 

To put it in the terms of our industry -- if anyone ever figures out how to charge for newspapers, Comcast can now step in and say "hey guys, that's all well and good, but if you want to use our high-speed connection, you're giving some of that money to us."

 

Lack of net neutrality also means ISPs could set limits on the amount of Web surfing you're allowed to do per month. Basically, they could set tiers like cell phone carriers and allow X amount of GB at this price and 2X at that price. There's even some talk of metering usage like your electricity where you'll pay based on the GBs used.

Net neutrality makes it more like TV subscriptions. You extra pay for HBO, then you can watch it 24/7 with no restrictions.

 

Comcast has started sending updates on usage in the past month. Sounds like they are on the path already.

 

Time online, bandwidth consumed or both?

Craziness. Sounds like AOL, before unlimited time online was the norm and people who's kids were spending a bunch of time online got huge bills.

Doesn't sound like we've come very far.

 

Competition will kill this for a couple of reasons:

*-Companies have always been able to meter service and charge for it (Compuserve & AOL both used to limit time or charge per email message). The market dictated unlimited time.
*-There is competition -- Comcast has no monopoly over service. If Comcast charges me too much, I'll go to AT&T. If AT&T charges too much, I'll use my blackberry. Or I'll use a smaller carrier that gives me a cheap, flat rate.

 

But it's not true competition. In some areas of the country, you can only get one or two ISPs. If I want broadband, for example, I have to use Cox or AT&T's U-verse. Those are my only options. Anything else and I have to use dial-up.

There's also this ...

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/

 

So, today's ruling was against net neutrality, right?

Inky's example sounds like a disaster. Is it just ISPs who are against net neutrality, or are their other companies that would/could benefit too?

(I guess Microsoft would benefit in Inky's example, but I think they'd all be afraid of being held hostage by ISPs & wouldn't want to start a precedent of paying an ISP for access to or to acquire customers.)