Net Neutrality Scare Tactics
- 1
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
I’m so tired of reading about net neutrality. Every day I see a new article about how Internet providers such as Comcast are going to charge different fees for access to only certain parts of the Internet. It’s the latest in scare tactics. It’s a way to create a buzz and get people riled up.
Net neutrality is important. I don’t believe Internet traffic should be completely controlled. But to say that all you will be able to get on the Internet by 2012 if you’re using Comcast is eBay, Disney and Comcast.net is ludicrous. This will never happen, and here are a few reasons why.
Devices we use
The devices we use like our laptop and cell phone rely on full access to the Internet to function. The whole mobile device market would collapse if we didn’t have access to the widgets on our devices. Not to mention devices like Tivo and video game consoles. Too much money is at stake. If all Internet providers were to cut the cord, these companies would find an alternate way to provide full Internet access.
Companies rely on it
Lots of people work from home now. They have to access their corporate VPN’s as well as various web sites to get their job done. Even sites like LockerGnome that feature many helpful tips need to be accessed while working from time to time. Imagine if the company you work for couldn’t access half of the resources and helpful data on the Internet. Productivity would drop to a crawl and corporations would not stand for it.
People wouldn’t pay for it
Who on Earth would pay to only access a a handful of web sites? Find me one person that would love to pay a certain amount for just a few web sites. It’s not profitable for Internet providers to shut certain sites out unless it affects network performance, i.e. torrent sites.
One Comment
Procrastinationist
June 6th, 2008
at 5:30am
I think the point of the scare tactics is that until we have some solid net neutrality legislation in place, the consumers have no reason not to assume the worst case scenario. And just looking at the steps that are being taken right now, I can very easily see the end game.
I’ve recently taken up net neutrality as somewhat of a flagship issue after reading two different news stories this week about Time Warner and Comcast rolling out what I consider to be NN-hostile policies. Time Warner is trying out ‘metered’ usage and bandwidth caps (caps which seem insanely low considering the high usage of video these days), and Comcast is instituting “protocol agnostic” bandwidth management policies (note that they are not called “content agnostic”). Now neither of these may be directly related to the issue of net neutrality in the sense that they do not appear on their face to give one content provider a notable advantage over another.
In both cases, however, there is ample room for abuse if we do not push Congress to enact regulations and oversight that prevents the telcos from abandoning their obligation to remain “common carriers”. I have tried to make the case throughout the blogosphere that absent any net neutrality regulation, metering and bandwidth caps will be the trojan horse through which they introduce the “slow lane” that goes to the heart of this issue.
If metered usage does end up becoming prevalent, people will absolutely hate it before too long (and most of us will have no other options). Without net neutrality, I believe that we will see the telcos introduce “preferred partner” content that will not be subject to these meters and caps. The consumers will have absolutely no say in which sites get this preferential treatment, but I can guarantee you that it will benefit the telocs more than the public at large.
So you’re right, Comcast and TWC will never outright prohibit users from going to any site they want, but any sort of preferential treatment such as the type I’ve described above is totally fair game without a rock solid set of laws protecting net neutrality.