Sounds like a back door to an internet fairness doctrine to me. Once they have the power it will be perverted to do the 180 degree opposite of what they promised.
Sounds like a back door to an internet fairness doctrine to me. Once they have the power it will be perverted to do the 180 degree opposite of what they promised.
***
I am in telecom ...
You guys don’t seem to get it - Net Neutrality is about access, NOT content.
Internet providers SHOULD have the ability to block the download of illegal content.
BUT
Internet providers SHOULD NOT have the ability to block free speech.
That being said, the exigence for Net Neutrality lies in the ACCESS to content.
Example:
Suppose I have Verizon FIOS and they have a movie download site. But, I use NetFlix because of better pricing, choices, customer service, etc.
Verizon wants to throttle back my NetFlix downloads to say 12 hours, while NOT restricting downloads from their site.
All in an attempt to get me to switch from NetFlix to the FIOS movie app.
The Big Boys (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) are AGAINST Net Neutrality for one reason - and one reason only ... MONEY !!!
NOW - if the Big Boys want to charge more for content transport of NetFlix’s traffic that is fine ...
AS LONG AS THEY INCREASE THE CHARGE (ON THE BOOKS) THAT THEY ASSESS THEIR OWN COMPARABLE MOVIE SERVICES ...
This keeps a level playing field.
Now, if Netflix (or the Big Boys) need to increase pricing to their customers because of the increase in transport cost - that is fine. They may even introduce tiered pricing (maximum bandwidth allowed). ***
BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO THROTTLE BACK THEIR LOW-PAYING CUSTOMERS, WHILE LETTING THEIR HIGHER PAYING CUSTOMERS GO THROUGH UNFETTERED.
*** This is similar to Netflix’s own pricing structure at this time - pay $9.95/month, get one movie at a time ... pay more, get more movies at a time.