Net Neutrality: Telcos Want to Charge Web Sites for Web Speed, Access Preference

[rose]

[quote author=Kristijntje link=topic=1523.msg7253#msg7253 date=1136715488]

Service providers should be free to charge different amounts for varying bandwidth, but they should not be allowed to cordon off content from consumers, Martin said.

"We need a watchful eye to ensure that network providers do not become internet gatekeepers, with the ability to dictate who can use the internet and for what purposes,"...

[/quote]

That is good news but the FTC's opinion won't count for diddly if Congress passes a bill

[mandy]

Another update:

BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay extortion-type fees if the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But Google has news for them: It won't pay.

Google told Networking Pipeline's Paul Kapustka in no uncertain terms that it won't give in to the cyberextortion. And despite reports to the contrary, Google says, it isn't talking with any carriers about the issue.

full article: http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/a..._wont.html

[mandy]

Related article:

Do you prefer to search for information online with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay? Many of us make these kinds of decisions several times a day, based on who knows what -- maybe you don't like bidding, or maybe Google's clean white search page suits you better than Yahoo's colorful clutter.

But the nation's largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's.

The changes may sound subtle, but make no mistake: The telecommunications companies' proposals have the potential, within just a few years, to alter the flow of commerce and information -- and your personal experience -- on the Internet...

full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00094.html

[mandy]

Related article from the WSJ:

Google Inc. has more than 5,000 employees world-wide. Only one of them works here as a lobbyist.

Internet companies such as search firm Google are investor favorites, but on Capitol Hill they risk being dwarfed by the lobbying might of telecommunications and cable companies. Recognizing their political disadvantage, some Internet companies are beefing up their Washington operations, hiring lobbyists, making political contributions and trying to persuade lawmakers to craft rules for the Internet that will favor their businesses.

The effort comes from necessity. Congress's hands-off-the-Internet approach, which has benefited Google, Yahoo Inc. and other Internet companies, is under strain as some telephone companies consider charging them for guaranteed fast delivery of Internet content...

full article: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1...?mod=blogs

[jezebel]

If an Internet pipe were divided up to resemble a four-lane road, the premium traffic might travel across three lanes while other Internet traffic might be funneled into one. Phone and cable companies wouldn't prevent delivery of traffic, but some might be routed through a more congested channel.

The corporate megasites will get the big pipes and the rest of us will be stuck in heavy traffic.

[mandy]

Another article on the  proposal for tiered Internet service.

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

[mandy]

A Verizon Communications Inc. executive yesterday accused Google Inc. of freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.

The comments by John Thorne  , a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, came as lawmakers prepared to debate legislation that could let phone and cable companies charge Internet firms additional fees for using their high-speed lines.

full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...s_business

The Verizon 's speech can be summed up in one smiley:  :lies2n:

[dnc_ont]

Thorne described two obstacles to building such networks: the task of getting thousands of local franchise agreements to offer cable television; and what he called "Google utopianism," a concept he likened to "spiked Kool-Aid."

  Who said these clowns could read stuff here?  Hasn't anyone trademarked that yet??

I had no idea that smoking crack and dropping acid had become so prevalent among executives these days..  :blinkie:

[mandy]

The man often called the father of the Internet has said that the future of the Internet is at risk. Vint Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP, asked US Congress to pass a law prohibiting broadband providers from discriminating against competing web applications and computer devices.

Congress needs to keep large broadband carriers from favouring their own services and slowing down access to competitors and from charging some websites for faster speeds, said Cerf, vice president and chief Internet evangelist at Google.

full article: http://www.techworld.com/networking/news...ewsID=5324

[Kristijntje]

A BBC commentary arguing the case for Net neutrality:

Is it time to let internet companies provide premium access to paying websites and services? No, says technology commentator Bill Thompson.

The net should be like a canal and not care about what travels on it...

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is considering making changes to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and one of the ideas being floated is that network providers should be allowed to offer preferential service to some of their customers instead of providing a neutral data carrier service...

...once we get away from the idea that the pipes just move bits around without really caring what data is being transmitted, it's a small step to discriminating against some forms of content and then targeting specific sites, services or users.

full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700430.stm