What gives and ISP the right to determine what content is sent through their pipes?
Well, they laid the cable, eh? It belongs to them.
Well, I would say that if you’re providing bandwidth, the heavy users of that bandwidth are getting more value than somebody who just does email. And thus could/should pay more.
A student friend of my daughter’s was freaking out (HS senior) to my daughter because “OMG, what if they charge us $5 a month for Snapchat? If they charge us for Snapchat, I’m not using it anymore!!!!”
My daughter told him “Well, if you won’t pay $5 a month for snapchat, I guess you don’t really give a shit about Snapchat.” :-)
You’re on better ground if the content providers start to cut the providers in on their profits so they can get superior bandwidth. Although I’m not exactly sure why I’d get so upset about that, either.
Now, if they BLOCK access, not just charge for it, then that’s something that the FCC can take up separately from this large “net neutrality” matter. My suspicion is that the providers will be rather careful not to make the public mad for the forseeable future. But, the larger picture is that the FCC can always revisit this if there’s a consumer complaint.
This is especially true when you consider the big three control the entire pipe (zero competition).
That’s a Sherman Act issue. I would be perfectly OK with re-breaking up the providers into competing companies again, if there’s a benefit to be had. Also, I think we need to consider cell services in that mix. I lived quite nicely for four years running Netflix off 4GLTE. The virtual reality game Second Life works fine on 4GLTE as well.
NN was designed to ensure everyone has equal access to everything.
Yea…….again, I don’t see how that even makes sense. Somebody who eats one meal a day at the restaurant shouldn’t be paying the same as somebody who eats several.
This is a battle between big and small where if allowed, the small will lose because the “big” has enough money to literally snuff them out.
Can you provide an example? To me, this sounds like something that the providers COULD do now, but wouldn’t be in their financial best interests to do.
To me, the biggest problem is that the users (and websites) won’t know what they don’t know (what they are missing) if universal website and web application access is regulated purely for the profit of the transport (ISP) layer. Especially when that transport layer has no competition.
I don’t think that’s true. If you query Google, you’re going to get back all the results from the Google crawler. It’s when you click the link that you’d realize that there’s blocked content, so it doesn’t seem to me that’s much of a risk.
No matter how you look at this, it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out over time. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides. Hopefully we’ll find some middle ground.
Yea. My guess is that there’s some specific legislation in order that doesn’t involve defining an internet service provider using the 1930’s definition of a