I’ve read characterizations of this news as very ominous. They say we’re looking at a future where everyone who are not large corporations are charged hefty fees to not have their traffic slowed way down, thus putting a huge range of independent businesses and blogs whose politics and views don’t agree with the provider’s out of business. And all because the very concept is miscategorized as a “the Internet must balance liberal and conservative views” in some circles (although to be fair, it’s also categorized as a “government control of the Internet” thing, which at least has some small basis in reality).
So given what’s been going on (a lawyer I once heard speak about this issue said their side was “a little ahead,” but that the fight was “very losable”), what do you see as the future of the Internet? Will anyone besides large and already wealthy businesses have a presence? Will anyone care? How, if at all, will the 'Net’s vaunted adaptability work around this?
Although there are some big companies fighting against net neutrality, there are also some big companies fighting for it, and the companies fighting for it seem to be a lot more resourceful and forward-thinking than the ones fighting against it. My guess is that if AT&T gets their way, the end result would just be that Google and friends just roll out their own series of tubes, and everyone flocks away from AT&T.
Since our internet speed is rated 17th in the world, many do believe it is a problem. Over 90 percent of internet is done by 3 companies. They want to make more money. They don’t have to improve the connection or support as you would know if you ever had a problem and had to deal with their support.
International business is a big user and our slower internet is a bad mark for our competitiveness.
The businesses are private, they do not have the ability to tax. They can and will jack up prices and cut service for home users . They could also slow down or stop sites that would be critical of them or their favored customers. It has lots of downside and no up.
I totally agree and this is why I’m against any “Net Neutrality” legislation. I don’t understand why people are so scared of ISPs charging different prices or possibly of blocking some web sites. The market is so large and the negative effects of blocking sites is so dire that nobody is going to do it long term and survive. My fear is that government regulations will unintentionally create market inefficiencies.
I think it roughly translates to “more than 90% of US internet users are served by three ISPs”, but I have no idea if that’s what he really means.
It’s not true, anyway. In 2008 the top three providers combined for about 45% of market share, if you count both Time Warner services together (Road Runner and AOL).
Right, because nobody ever subscribed to AOL and their rather limited version of the internet.
I think its a concern, but not for the reasons stated by the OP. No ISP is gonna bother censoring political websites or the like that they disagree with, its hard to do (you’d have to block mirrors and the like) bad for business, and generally not worth the effort.
I think the risk of not having net neutrality is the same as the risk allowing any other verticle monopoly, that ISPs that are also content providers will favor their own content, hurting comeptition and making breaking into certain areas (streaming video, for example) without owning your own ISP very difficult. Plus it could make choosing an ISP kind of a minefield for consumers, since you wouldn’t just be choosing based on price and speed, but have to factor in whatever crazy content specific throttling scheme the different providers have to favor their own traffic.
How well is AOL doing? Are there any major markets in the US that have AOL as the only ISP available?
I don’t think this has much chance of happening on a wide scale. The value of the internet is logarithmic to the number of available sites. An ISP that blocks access to any wide degree is devaluing itself, making it less attractive to users. Some ISPs may get away with it by offering cheaper monthly rates and will garner users who don’t care about total access. To me, however, thats a win: users who don’t care get cheaper service, users who do care use another ISP that doesn’t block anything.
As long as governments don’t inadvertently create a monopoly (like some towns have done with cable TV) I believe the market will gravitate to a “free” internet.
Google is already trying to carve its own niche withe Verizon and wireless broadband:
Do we want one internet accessible to iPhones and different one available on Android phones?
You are misunderstanding the issue. It has nothing to do with what consumers pay. It is about whether ISPs can charge content providers to get preferred speeds and access. Say you have a 100Mbps line. Disney pays the fee and ABC shows can be played at full speed, but GE refused and NBC shows only come through at dial up speed.
Imagine an ISP being part of a large corporation with, say, Fox. Fox decides that they want to support their video on demand service, and puts a throttle on Netflix movies. Or the ISP makes a deal with Nintendo to not slow down on-line games for the Wii, but Sony can’t get the same deal for their games.
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear. I don’t think the issue is a ISP totally blocking a site (as you say, that would scare away customers), but throttling traffic from non-aligned sites so that their limited bandwidth favors their own content over that of competitors.
The issue isn’t a horizontal monopoly like the ones that exist with cable companies but a verticle monopoly where content providers compete with each other, but own not only the content but the means of delivery, so that they can make it tougher for their competitors to deliver the same product to consumers, even though the competitors product may be superior.
I still don’t think it will happen. Throttling traffic for some web sites (which is effectively blocking it) will annoy most users, who will flock to another ISP.
Cable TV may be instructive. To my knowledge there are few major networks/channels that aren’t available to all cable owners (caveat: I do not have tv so I may be ignorant). The biggest flap I know of is when the NFL tried to strong-arm cable companies into including the NFL Network in basic plans.
The amount of content on the internet is so huge no ISP could possibly compete by limiting access in anything but trivial ways. Users don’t want a limited ISP (unless it saves them money). As long as government fosters competition (by mostly staying out of the way) then uses will get what they want.
The big 3 providers have over 90 percent of the market in the US. They are all pushing hard for this change. I suppose some will think it is because they want to give better service and cut costs. They would be wrong.
Much of the country has one provider. Their are no options at all. In the rest of the country, the providers are the same. Who you going to flock to? They have all the power and want more.
Arguably (and this is, I believe, an argument used by Net Neutrality supporters), they could use a “whitelist” instead of a “blacklist.” If you pay, your company gets on the whitelist for fast download. If not, you’re in the “slow lane.” That wouldn’t take a lot of effort on the ISP’s part.
Though a blacklist COULD be used for minimal important “surgical strikes” - e.g. TimeWarner blocking specific large sites made to complain about TimeWarner.
Soooooo, the companies are paying for the speed and volume they use. Doesn’t this keep sham businesses who email EVERYBODY from sucking the life out of bandwidth?
There are many strong opinions about net neutrality - combined by an almost complete lack of understanding of exactly what it is.
There’s an almost complete lack of understanding of net neutrality because it’s not well defined - even the ISPs and activists can’t agree on what it is.
For example, some people think that net neutrality means that ISPs can’t offer tiered rate plans or premium services. Some think it has something to do with censorship of opposing views. Some think that net neutrality will remove the ISP’s ability to do any kind of packet shaping or prioritizing. Yet others promise that ‘legitimate IT functions’ won’t be compromised, but no one knows exactly what that is.
In one scenario, ISPs wouldn’t be able to prioritize data coming from different sources. But being able to do that is absolutely critical. Some internet traffic doesn’t care if it has millisecond timing guarantees - http requests, for example. But other traffic, such as VOIP, real time gaming, or streaming video absolutely have to have low latency windows.
I’m worried about innovation. What if some new service comes along that’s a real bandwidth hog, and absolutely needs instant response? Say, a 3D real time virtual world. If such a service can’t piggyback onto the ISP’s current infrastructure, the ISP might install new hardware to increase capacity - but not unless it can charge a premium to end users for that service to cover the additional infrastructure costs. If there’s no way to do that, then the effect of net neutrality is to put price caps in internet services, and that will lead to lower investment and shortages of the kinds of services that use high bandwidth or require low latency.
Yes. And naturally, some of the disagreement is due to willful obfuscation. Technology, meet politics.
Are you sure you meant “sources”? ISTM that you’re talking about QoS tiering, which (I think) is better described as “application type”. But “source” could be interpreted a bunch of different ways, such as physical location or originating server. And this is exactly where the disagreements orginate…