Who do they think they are, cable TV providers?
The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. Britain’s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are thrust into the “fast lane”, while those that don’t are left fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They’re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is: can they get away with it?
“Anti Net Neutrality” requires too much gymnastics.
I suggest “tiered internet” to directly address what is being done.
Money.
Who’d a thought that?
Until there is actual competition among ISPs, there must be net-neutrality.
Tiered internet is censorship.
That’s ok, if they screw it up enough we’ll just have to boycott the providers responsible.
@#2 In this case simple free market is not enough. Internet is way too powerful for both Corporations and Govt. not to have dibs on controlling it.
US has wonderful Constitutional provision protecting free speech. By definition of what we are doing on the Internet every past classification of free speech for it would apply. All what is needed is amendment clarifying that all Internet communication is protected free speech (that can’t be altered, obstructed or falsified) and suddenly no FCC illegal control is needed nor can Corporations scheme how to milk their place in Internet control chain.
Anybody not seeing that the Internet will eventually be taken over by corporate interests, just like broadcast TV, is either not paying attention or just plain in denial.
The major telcos see every little website running banner ads as a threat to their revenue streams. One site by itself may not pose much of a threat, but multiply that by several million.
They will make it impossible for anybody to maintain a web presence unless they can afford extortionate fees and licensing.
Enjoy it while you can… it won’t last much longer.
That’s why I get almost all of my media through podcasts.
I just let the things download in their own sweet time and play them when I want to listen to them.
Let ’em put me in the slow lane, I’m in no hurry. My computer runs all night.
As for picking a different provider…
Well that doesn’t work if you use cable. Cable ISP are granted monopolies by the government and by law can’t compete.
Telcos might work for you, but I doubt it.
Ma Bell is getting her revenge for having had to get rid of those Northern Electric plants that used to make those great black bakelite handsets. (I KNOW that in 1985 I had a $965.16 monthly phone bill to access an X.25 network with a 1,200 baud modem and I KNOW that Ma Bell would LOVE to have that kind of power again.)
The United States, Britain and other hegemonic units are becoming fascist economies by dint of the shifts in ownership to a very small minority while attempting to maintain those very same hegemonies.
If you think it sucks now, just you wait…
#6 Well said.
It was over a year ago I had a problem watching vids from BBC. They would not even load slow. It’s been 6 months since I last tried. I guess I know why now.
Looks like the sheeple are getting screwed across the pond.
The weird thing about all of this is that there IS competition in the UK.
BT (British Telecom) has all of the ADSL infrastructure and was forced by the regulator to supply wholesale ADSL to any company at the same price as it charges it’s own ISP service.
And so any UK resident can pretty much choose from dozens of ISP’s.
But of course people tend to pick the biggest, cheapest ones from well known companies.
Hopefully if kind of tiering does happen, people will learn to switch providers.
Well, of course you’ve heard that Verizon has already sued the FCC over recent regulations for net neutrality. And those were pretty weak regulations at that. More interesting, Verizon had already AGREED to similar net neut rules. They see themselves as the arbiters of what’s fair and feel self-regulation is the way to go. Now they want to sue to confirm it. I say there isn’t a telco or ISP in the US that’s working to better their customers’ experience. There are too many granted monopolies in the telco business and someone tell me, please, why they all aren’t on the block for price fixing? Telephones and internet services should, IMHO, be regulated as public utilities. It is no longer a luxury to have either.
But that’s just my opinion and worth every damned cent you paid for it.
All Internet in all countries should be treated as a Public Utility and regulated as such, otherwise the *free market* will provide for themselves and their
shareholders at the expense of anyone or thing that reduces their profit margins.
The Net has become as basic as water, electric and phone. It’s not a luxury item any more than electricity. Imagine the stupidity of the argument of rationing electricity depending on who pays the most, or who owns the business or house.
Government regulation of the Net is not a bad thing, just to early in the game to see enough political will behind it.
Your governments may be hopeless but they are the only fair arbitrator left when the game of profit heats to the point of damaging the country or individual citizens.
In many area’s its hard to just boycott a ISP because it may be the only one. I agree with the concept of Net Neutrality. But implementing it in a world where dollars talk is another thing. My issues with selective measures as it pertains to traffic. Is that everybody already pays to be on the internet.
From the content provider to the end user. Now if you pay on top of that for let’s say Netflix. Should your ISP not provide you with the same speed as say their own streaming content? Yes they should because you pay for Internet service. Our electric companies don’t decide where to give their power or gas companies either.
jescott418 said, “Our electric companies don’t decide where to give their power”
Bad analogy. Your electric company charge you a flat rate? All you can eat, one price?
Except for cellular, most broadband is.
I do wonder at business models like NetFlix or even Google that rely on the ISPs to provide their product. If I stream a few NetFlix films every week, should they have to pay my ISP for the drain on their pipes? And what about every other server that participates in getting the file to me?
I’m not saying that’s the way it should be, ’cause I don’t know. I like my mediocre broadband. 5Mbps but I download a lot of gigabytes for my $32/month.
Animby–don’t you pay for the speed/volume of your internet access? We do here in the USA–usually a base/poor rate, average user, and business user. YOU pay your ISP for the “drain” to access NetFlix. I’ve been cut off for downloading too much and they have limits even now, just don’t make them public. So, its not a flat rate or unlimited.
another analogy is standard phone service. You pay one rate for local, another for national, and a third/forth for overseas.
Pro’s and Con’s to all we do but when you buy bread at the store, do you think the bread delivery guy should too when he delivers it?
You’ve flipped from standard free market to mafioso. Your dealer evidently wasn’t picked up in that latest sweep. “Johnny -Twice Paid Internet- Stompanado”? Ha, ha.
Thats a great deal
The reason we are having a Net Neutrality debate is that there is not enough competition in the broadband market. Corporations like British Telecom must maximize their profit and act in the best interest of their shareholders. No where on their list of priorities do they have the utopian goal of protecting an open Internet. This does not make them evil. It is just the facts. How can an open Internet be in sync with the responsibilities of BT? That is simple. Competition.
Real time applications like Netflix, online gaming and VoIP are rapidly becoming the most popular uses on the Internet. Could BT block or slow down some of this content while going head-to-head against a competitor that does not? Not likely since losing revenue would not be maximizing their profit potential. And that would be far more effective than any regulation government could ever put in place.
>Now if you pay on top of that for let’s say Netflix. Should your ISP not provide you with the same speed as say their own streaming content? Yes they should because you pay for Internet service.
Stands to reason that if they are actually charging companies to get priority access, then it means they will be charging you less for your access, and hoping to get more when you sign up for their services which are faster.
Comcast used to charge $70 a month for internet. Now they are charging $30 plus $30 for phone.
As more people use services like Netflix and Skype the core revenue that the cable and phone companies generate is eroding. So it is only natural that they will want to generate revenue by “Taxing” both the companies that are circumventing their normal revenue source and the users of these services. Sadly in the U.S. lobbyists are legal, they are really not much more than paid bribers! So when the time comes to rule on Net Neutrality the ISP’s will send in their lobbyists get their way.
#16 Boberto – The telcos here aren’t that sophisticated, yet. It’ll come soon. But right now I pay the highest rate and get the next-to-highest speed (5Mbps) available (ADSL). That probably doesn’t sound right. But it’s true. They have a special rate, about half what I pay, at 6Mbps – but it only works on websites cached on their servers in Bangkok! In other words, it hardly works at all.
But I download far more entertainment than I can watch. I still have the entire 5th and 6th season of LOST sitting on my HHD. And so many movies, last week I had to throw a bunch (and I mean a BIG bunch) away because my terabyte disk was running out of space. I’ve got my eye on a 2 TB disk but I’m gonna wait a little longer.
As for you, I’d forgotten how “unlimited” has come to mean “limited” with US telcos. Mr Orwell’s newspeak, no doubt.
This WILL happen here and already IS happening because the FCC fails to enforce what was law and is now being dismantled in favor of companies who pay more money (to congress) than consumers can afford.
Time to rip them up like the corrupt predecessor the the FAA way back when.
At some point, internet service will come in over its own fiber, owned and operated by a utility, just like electricity.
It will be regulated just like the power corporation.
It will require some drastic changes to the ownership structures (ComCast et alia will have to be convinced to get out of providing the service [jail term are usually effective.])
That will happen inevitably when ISP overstep their authority and cut off the wrong person, like NOT providing access to the NFL at superbowl time.
I’ll be dead by then but it is going to happen.
They’ve barely scratched the surface. I can see advertising companies paying ISPs to lock out their competitors’ ads, GM paying to block not only Ford’s ads, but their web sites as well — or what the heck, any website that mentions the word Ford whatsoever. Movie companies will pay to block bad reviews. Coke will pay to block Pepsi and vice-versa, Microsoft will deny licenses not only to ISPs that use Linux or BSD, but to any that allow traffic to or from computers that run those OSes. (MacOS too? Maybe.) Food and drug companies will pay to block the FDA and anyone promoting healthy foods or lifestyles.
When the unfiltered Internet is outlawed, only outlaws will have unfiltered Internet!
it was announced last night that that the bbc will be forced to make massive cuts to its web site witch as a license fee payer i have all ready paid for.the bbc is the cited as the single reason why news corp. have completely failed with its subscription only news sites.i also pay my isp to deliver this content to me.if they are going to charge web sites for access are they stop charging me? news corp. are also one of the largest isp’s in Briton .is it me but i think i see a plan coming together that involves me having to pay a lot more money for my news. how much longer will it be before the only catch-up tv i can access will be able to get will come from news corp.for a large fee
Verizon sues to stop net-neutrality rules it suggested only five months ago, and they were pretty watered down and weak to begin with. Yea Big Corps!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/01/verizon_doesnt_like_net-neutra.html