Net neutrality finished in the United States?

[shamrock_uk]

Robert has got it spot on I think.

This article makes a similar point that we risk doing away with people's ability to publish their content and have it viewed.

In terms of 'owning' a piece of infrastructure, I do rent a server in America, for secure backup purposes and donating to community projects (eg for Escape from Undermountain) - I pay for the privelege of publishing already, at a price determined by the market that the hosting company can make a profit with. Why should I have to pay more to guarantee that people can access my content?

JD: Your comment about unfairly restricting them from charging for new services is off the mark I think - they won't be providing new services. The reason we don't have access to legal streamed movies for example is entirely down to the movie industry not having come up with a way to do it with sufficient control for example. It's not an issue of bandwidth or whether we have a 'new generation' of internet.

[robertthebard]

That's going to be the case with a lot of media, I believe. I can put my music on my site to either sell, or make available for download, because I own it, intellectually, and physically. I made the music, I can do as I wish. The providers that sponsor music for paid/free downloads own the rights to do that, purchased from the media providers. The way I understand this stuff Telecoms are pushing for, the providers will have to purchase the license, or own it outright, as I do, and then pay them for the right to provide it, above what they already pay. It's not, as Shamrock said, about providing new services, it's about lining their pockets more for services they already provide.

You may notice, as well that my position has cemented on this issue, unlike when I first read about it. I looked at both sides, and asked the question, what does it mean for me? What it means it that I will essentially be paying twice for my domain, once to put the info up, and again to be sure the info gets seen. That's not fair business practice, whether you're a multi billion dollar industry, or operating like me, where it is actually costing me more to keep the site up than I've made. Changing the current status quo puts a lot of people like me out of the loop, completely. It's one thing to want to promote fair competition, it's another to want to line your pockets at the expense of content providers. Why do people buy/lease domains anyway? To put content out to the world, whether that be for profit, or entertainment, or to just host sigs. Asking these people to pay their domain provider, and the the company that gets paid by them is not fair business. It's robbing people because you can.

[Nightwing]

I think you are right shamrock, I don't mind paying a premium price for premium service but I don't want to have a situation like we now have with our cable companies where they put different packages together and you pay for the package you want and they charge accordingly. You don't know with the internet what sites you are going to need on a given day. I don't want to pay extra to come to Ironworks just because my carrier see's I go there a lot and it's an opportunity to charge me more for what I want. That's over simplifing it but the idea is the same.

[Bungleau]

I didn't get that the issue was whether or not people would be able to see your content. What I understood was that they were considering offering services to their customers such that they provided a faster pipe to their sites than they would to other sites. So it wasn't a question of visibility, but of speed of access.

Now, given that the average person allows something like 15 seconds for a page to come up, speed does matter, but it's not a case of blocking non-paying sites.

And the cost is on the site provider, not the surfer. So I wouldn't have to pay extra for IW, but Z might have to pay extra for faster hosting.

[ 06-23-2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Bungleau: I didn't get that the issue was whether or not people would be able to see your content. What I understood was that they were considering offering services to their customers such that they provided a faster pipe to their sites than they would to other sites. So it wasn't a question of visibility, but of speed of access.

I think visibility is simply the flip side of the coin.

Prioritising content according to the wishes of the infrastructure provider is the first enabling step towards the possibility of denial of service.

If we consider Ironworks and an imaginary competitor Steelworks. Lets say AT&T decide that Steelworks should have priority because they have the cash to pay a premium, so they ensure that packets to/from Steelworks take priority and travel at a faster speed.

Faced with longer load times and possibly even dropped connections, is this any different in practice to a denial of service on Ironworks? Speed of access is directly related to visibility.


As for MS et al - as a Linux user who constantly is annoyed by their boneheaded and anti-competitive software, I am the last person to side with them normally. In this case however, they're right.

[ 06-23-2006, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[robertthebard]

Yeah, to break that down, accessibility is visibility. The easier it is to get to the site, the better your chances are to be successful, in what ever you're trying to do with the site. In my case, I have media on site that needs to be playable, and if they restrict the bandwidth for it because I can't pay, then my site might as well be closed down.

[Zebodog]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Bungleau: I didn't get that the issue was whether or not people would be able to see your content. What I understood was that they were considering offering services to their customers such that they provided a faster pipe to their sites than they would to other sites. So it wasn't a question of visibility, but of speed of access.

I think visibility is simply the flip side of the coin.

Prioritising content according to the wishes of the infrastructure provider is the first enabling step towards the possibility of denial of service.

If we consider Ironworks and an imaginary competitor Steelworks. Lets say AT&T decide that Steelworks should have priority because they have the cash to pay a premium, so they ensure that packets to/from Steelworks take priority and travel at a faster speed. [/QUOTE]Isn't that called free enterprise? When ordering products on-line, you have the option to pay more for premium or rush shipping, right? What's the difference?

[robertthebard]

Because they don't charge the content provider for all the shipping no matter which one the customer uses. If you use priority shipping, that's what you're charged with. The way I read this, to guarantee that I can provide the music on my site for customers to listen to the easiest, I have to pay the telecom company too, instead of just paying Yahoo, who already pays the telecom company. Essentially, it's paying for my site twice.

[Zebodog]

But your payment to Yahoo is simply for basic service, where as the additional payment to the ISP is for premium service.

I certainly understand the implications this has for small business, but I don't see any difference between this and brick-and-mortar business. Capitalism has a price.

[robertthebard]

So the telecommunications company that provides the pipe that I use through Yahoo should get paid twice for the same content? Once from me, and once from Yahoo? Because this is what you are advocating here. I'm not paying for a separate package, I'm "bribing" the telecom company to put me on their preferred list. I shouldn't have to do that. Yahoo pays them to provide me the pipe space I use. I shouldn't have to pay them too.