pay to surf

I’ve been hearing about Congress wanting to allow companies to charge a premium to access particular websites faster. I didn’t realize it was actually coming to a vote.

At least according to the Official Google Blog: The Debate over Net Neutrality

That’s not cool. I may just have to right my rep!

(yes, I know the difference in write and right…and in this case, I think I picked the correct one)

[tags]congress, net neutrality, pay to surf, idiocy[/tags]

Be Sociable, Share!
  • R

    The way you wrote it, it makes it seem like Congress is going to START allowing this. In fact, large ISPs have done this for quite a while through partnerships (and dedicated networks) with content providers. I don’t like the idea of my ISP throttling bandwidth to certain content providers, but I don’t think it’s up to the government to make these rules. This is really an issue of certain providers (Google) deciding they don’t want to do business with ISPs in a certain way, and siccing the lawmakers on them to maintain their current business model. It would be a little like me saying that I don’t like the software-as-a-service model and demanding that the gov’t outlaw it (instead of just not buying it myself). I think that when it comes to business, government regulation only leads to the need for more regulation. I’d rather spend my extra dollar on a product in a competitive society than to pay the salary of a politician who thinks that he knows best.

  • rob

    R, you’re right. The point is that if an ISP is doing it, that’s one thing. To make it a law is something different.

  • Adriano

    Net neutrality is the extreme opposite of what the telcos want to enact
    nation wide, which is a multi-tiered Internet that would allow for the
    double charging of bandwidth and essentially the discrimination of
    certain content providers such as Google, CNN, etc. If AT&T began to
    favor MSN search over google for example, they could slow traffic to
    google down in such a way that google would be forced to pay their
    bandwidth tax, or have MSN become the dominant search engine.

    Each of them in a nut shell:

    Multi-tiered Internet:

    Allows telcos (AT&T & Verizon pushing for it the most) to discriminate
    against big content providers such as Google and CNN by not only forcing
    them to pay for their bandwidth from their ISP, but forcing them to pay
    a bandwidth “tax” in order to have their content delivered to end users
    at a reasonable rate. If providers do not pay the tax, their bandwidth
    can be throttled to a crawl by the upper level provider.

    Net Neutrality:

    Forces providers to adhere to non-discriminatory policies in delivering
    content/data to specific users, applications, and services. For example,
    there was a case in 2005 where the FCC ruled that a certain ISP couldn’t
    block its users from using VOIP. Another example is that many ISPs shape
    Bittorrent traffic so that it’s too slow to even consider using (Stetson
    does this Arrrrr!); If Net Neutrality laws were in effect, this would be
    illegal for Universities to do.

    Net neutrality can also be a problem though because it requires you to
    provide everyone equal access to your service, whether it is in your
    best interest or not. Like schools who block Bittorrent access; it’s
    fairly well known that most students don’t use Bittorrent to send their
    final project to their professor, their using it to download last
    night’s episode of 24 or Lost, which obviously isn’t in the school’s
    best interest to allow.

    Net neutrality is a huge issue right now, it’s going to be interesting
    to see what happens over the next few months as makes its way through
    the courts.

  • Adriano

    Hey Rob, thought you might want to give this a read, as it pertains to “good and bad neutrality”.