Have I understood you right here Timber? You're basically saying that the net neutrality thing should have been left out because it's just extra red tape?
That's not the case here - net neutrality was originally legally applicable to the internet, but then the FCC rescinded this:
Quote:
For many years, the essential principles of network neutrality were enforced by common carrier requirements. These guidelines prevented telecommunications companies from offering preferential treatment to specific content providers in exchange for a fee.
However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified cable modem and DSL services as Information Services rather than Telecommunications Services, replacing common carrier requirements with a set of four less-restrictive "net neutrality principles"[1].
This sparked a debate over whether or not Internet Service Providers should be allowed to discriminate between different content providers, possibly by offering more bandwidth to higher-paying companies, which would in turn cause certain services to become more accessible to users.
|
This isn't about adding extra red tape - it's about re-applying a fundamental principle that has applied to the internet since its conception and that should never have been removed in the first place.
For those who are still sceptical and think that market forces will stop this from happening, here are some examples that have already occurred in America and Canada:
Quote:
Below are examples listed by SaveTheInternet of past examples of abuses by ISP companies where they blocked rivals or unfavorable opinions about themselves.
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by making their opponents seem worse than they really are.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
|
This isn't just scaremongering - it's happening now.
[ 06-09-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]