Future of the Internet Highway Debated

Some ISP 'shape' packet speed already. This is really about getting more money. Verizon is a content provider. Verizon charges extra from songs and other content. There is already tiered service. If you would like more speed or more reliability you pay a higher price. All carriers charge all users. This is an attempt to capitalize on the masses lack of knowledge of what the Internet usage is all about.

Net neutrality is a big issue and its important to keep it out there and help people understand. The telecom industry has reaped billions in public money to build out their networks, and now want us to pay more. Where's the money. The number I saw was something like $2000/household in subsidies were given to build a broadband to the home. Where's my big pipe?

Net neutrality is everything. Imagine if Newsvine needed $1,000,000 in "bandwidth licensing" from the big ISPs? I get worried when companies are earning money both from producers (content producers) and consumers. They are trying to charge both ways.

lostinafog points out the issue I was going to address as well.

If the telco gets to charge Google, Yahoo, Valve, EA, Skype or Vonage extra for the quality of content, then will the end-consumers get to request a chargeback for the lack of quality for all the packets I
should have been able to get over the universal broadband that was supposed to be in place over
a decade ago?

I love how the author seems to frame the debate around getting those poor gaming/phone call/advertisers video packets where they need to go. Oh, the poor slow packets, what can we do to help them?

The system is built for exactly that, not all packets get to their destinations via the same route, at the same speed. They get there, that is what matters. That is why the system works.

Verizon, Comcast and all the rest are looking for ways to charge the content provider to send the packet, you to receive the packet and then both again depending on the nature of the packet? Pure B.S.

I would laugh them right out of congress, except they're paying for the audience. Or is that paying the audience?

Let's make a deal with them. When they deliver the Internet to us at the same speed it is delivered in Thailand, and Japan, at the same relative price, provided to all Americans (Yes, Iowa is in America.), we'll talk.

See you in 20 years.

Hell no.

RobK: Exactly. Last summer in Korea, when I told my family that some people in America still used dial-up, they laughed at me. When they realized I was serious, they said they thought it was a myth.

Should the US Internet be run like the US Interstate road system?

Should the US Internet be run like the US Interstate road system?

Is this some kind of trick question? I say "Yes" and you say "Well, in that case..."

imagine what gonna be?

robK writes:
Verizon, Comcast and all the rest are looking for ways to charge the content provider to send the packet, you to receive the packet and then both again depending on the nature of the packet? Pure B.S.

Kudos to robK for pointing out exactly what's wrong with this. When I make a phone call, the phone company charges me. It doesn't charge Bob for receiving the phone call, and it sure as hell doesn't charge me and Bob twice the price to ensure there isn't a half-second delay - it just does the job quickly and efficiently.

I don't think this is going to happen this side of the pond in Britain any time soon, but it's much more likely to happen if it works over there. I can only see one real solution to the problem, though I'm sure there's more: if possible, vote with your wallet.

Ooble
I don't know about places outside the US but we play for both sides of a cell phone call. Believing that profit drives all let them go at it. Keep the government out of the choice, repeat choice. Innovation comes from need. If the telcos think they can make more money by limits then some person will come up with a new path. Governments only job is to make all players play nice. The Internet is not a public utility.

You what? And no one stood up and protested against the lack of ethical behaviour?

You what? And no one stood up and protested against the lack of ethical behaviour?

That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen in the U.S. anymore. Citizens seem to say "well, I'm getting ripped off, but it's good enough."

The Internet is not a public utility, but that doesn't mean it should be a free for all. A single law declaring that all packets should be treated equal would suffice. I'm not interested in trying to find an alternative to the entire Internet because conservatives are against any and all regulation of business.

Business simply does not act in the people's interest when it isn't asked to. That is why we have unions, child labor laws, a minimum wage, and federal holidays. Now you see business fighting the creation of similar laws in the third world countries they've moved to to avoid the law here. I'm not about to leave net neutrality up to a bunch of telcos that have been getting my money in the form of communications taxes for years and still cannot manage innovation at the rate of Korea, Singapore, and Japan and then ask for more money from me to deliver 1/8th the download speed as those Asian countries. In Japan, their nationwide high speed Internet delivery is because of government intervention, not in spite of it.

If the Telcos push this, they should lose their (pseudo-)common carrier status and be legally responsible for any and all illegal uses of their network. It's as simple as that.