I'm a firm supporter of Net Netruality and am pleased to see the issue are still considered.
In order to deliver high-quality video on the Internet, some network packets must be prioritized, and by definition, some network packets must be dropped. There is a fear some websites will be blocked - this is not true - just delayed. High quality video is very bandwidth-intensive and requires prioritization, otherwise the video will pause all the time. Just to give you an idea, watching a full DVD would take over a week to download using the fastest dial-up modem, assuming everything is running at full speed (which is never the case). In order to deliver high-quality web entertainment, new investment must be made to increase bandwidth significantly, and in order to justify this investment, ISPs must have the flexibility to charge a premium for those who wants these new services. There is a big business opportunity for ISPs to deliver high quality video on the web and replace Calbe Television. Blaming greed is not fair, because so far the Internet has been operated on profit motive. The Internet is not, and never will be, a charity-based business.
ISPs want to offer website packages to their customers for high-quality video, the same as when you subscribe to special channels on Cable TV. Of course, those websites will have priority over the other websites because of the real-time nature of delivering video content. The corporations sponsoring Net Neutrality, such as Microsoft and Google, are not charitable either; they want to get the same bandwidth windfall so their website get the same priority as the privileged video websites. Net Neutrality is rent seeking, that is, having equal access to distribute the videos using the ISPs network, without investing in the network infrastructure. Following the same logic as "Net Neutrality", the same could be said for "Television Neutrality" where any corporation could add their own TV channels without paying anything to the Cable TV providers. Because the Internet is gaining popularity and technology could allow real-time high-quality video, there is an irresistible temptation for non-ISPs to legislate bandwidth so they can start distributing video on the web to replace Cable TV - at the expense of the ISPs.
So far, the Internet has been doing fine without Net Neutrality. Some websites will have higher priority, but even the low-priority websites will benefit from the extra idle bandwidth. By increasing competition, it is likely prices for Cable TV will drop, the same as long distance calls are dropping because of VoIP.
I am not affiliated with any ISPs or own any shares. I am a computer engineer. I care about the freedom of the Internet and don’t want this marvelous technology to fall into the wrong hands. One thing I distrust the most are politicians, however well intended, they will screw up. Giving power to politicians to regulate the Internet will not foster innovation.
Bandwidth throttling is a normal business activity to prevent abuse. Bandwidth is cheap, nevertheless not free. Trying to impose a law to prevent traffic throttling will make things worse. Please read "Europe's Internet Trouble" regarding regulations at http://www.mises.org/story/2851
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2013 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms