Sorry to disagree, but...
Quote:
The fear is that ISPs will give priority to their own customers, thereby slowing things down for everyone else. If I'm an AT&T customer, they route my packets through bigger pipes with better performance, in effect creating a toll road. Or I pay a premium for faster access.
The flaw is that all ISPs would have to agree on it, or else AT&T would put me through quickly, but Earthlink, since I'm not one of their customers, would put me back on the slow road.
|
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I admit, that if this were only ISP's, then a problem wouldn't exist.
The big telecom companies however, physically own huge swathes of internet infrastructure, leasing the use of it to individual ISP's. The capability to create a two speed internet is certainly within their power.
Of course, their defense is that enough bandidth exists for all and it wouldn't make market sense for them to do so in any case.
However, with the principle of neutrality rapidly disappearing from US law, we have no guarantee that when it
does make market sense to discriminate that they won't do so.
The exact wording of the amendment was:
Quote:
|
An amendment sponsored by Rep.Edward Markey (Mass,D) to ensure that broadband providers "do not block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive or offer lawful content, applications or services of the Internet" was defeated by 269 votes to 151, the split falling down party lines.
|
Even if net neutrality is a "solution looking for a problem" as the teleco's allege, it's an amendment that any reasonable person would agree was in the public's interest.
But if there are dissenting voices, I'll edit the title to be a little less definitive
Edit: Lots of 'em as I think I misunderstood Bungleau
[ 06-09-2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]