from Quentin Colgan
Here is some word of mouth for you: Although Chairman Genachowski’s draft Order has not been made public, early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net neutrality. For many Americans — particularly those who live in rural areas — the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections. Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason.
For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a TEA PARTY group in your area). It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet — but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called “paid prioritization” (the creation of a “fast lane” for big corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern. the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind of discrimination.
What’s more, even the protections that are established in the draft Order would be weak because it defines “broadband Internet access service” too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get around the rules. Here’s what’s most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and President Obama — who nominated him — have argued convincingly that they support net neutrality. But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we’ve been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it. No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his agency is supposed to regulate — and no true advocate of a free and open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media conglomerates before issuing new rules. After all, just look at Comcast — this Internet monolith has reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix. That’s the same Netflix that represents Comcast’s biggest competition in video services. Imagine if Comcast customers couldn’t watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast’s Video On Demand service.
Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to exist.
That’s why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time.
I did not write this.
It is word of mouth.
An interesting post. But, the situation is even more complex and dynamic.
Ill toss just one scenario into the mix. That is when content providers discriminate (block or filter) traffic from certain ISPs.
Why? Because the ISP wont cough up with per subscriber royalty payments.
Probably the biggest example is ESPN
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-neutrality-foul-in-espn-online-video-charges/
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520220258
In effect, if you are an ISP not giving money to ESPN for access, then one day your subscriber may try to access certain content and be presented with a screen suggesting that they switch to an ISP who does cough up with the dough. In response, rather than loose paying subscribers, you start paying.
Yes, that is a gun to your head. An economic gun.
The monthly fees become buried into the monthly costs for bandwidth. And those costs are buried there whether or not you ever access that particular content.
Sound Familiar?
IMHO it is exactly the kind of activity that made and continues to make cable and satellite subscriptions expensive, based on packages, and prevents you (the consumer) from choosing what you will and will not subscribe to on an individual basis (AKA: A la carte pricing).
If you are a cable or satellite operator and you want to carry ESPN. Then you will forward well over $3 per month per subscriber and you will carry ESPN in the most widely distributed program package (AKA: Base Package), or you wont carry ESPN.
It does not matter if your customer (the subscriber) wants or ever watches ESPN, you and the subscriber pay, and you have very few palatable options in the matter. It is this game played by content providers that created the programing package and resists per channel pricing.
I see the same thing occurring with on-line content. And I think that its a bad thing.
Re: Quentin Colgan | December 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Reply
I did not write this.
It is word of mouth.
Colgan also did not write that he would like to see Wally Herger dead at the hands of Mexican drug thugs. He only inferred it.
There is HUGE difference between saying you want someone dead and inferring that that you want someone dead at the hands of Mexican drug thugs.
Thank you Quentin for so many excellent examples of “thinking outside of the box”.
Please review the difference between “infer” and “imply.”
Infer is not to imply and these two verbs should not be used interchangeably.
To infer is to conclude something from reasoning: to come to a conclusion or form an opinion about something on the basis of evidence or reasoning.
To imply is to strongly suggest the truth or existence of something.
As in….If you imply, I can infer, but I cannot imply from what you infer.
How’d I do?
How’d I do?
Excellent. Just remember, the speaker implies, and the listener infers.
Soaps, care to givbe us your opinion on the two Koreas? It doesn’t look too good to me at the moment.