Network Neutrality
Posted by Scott Bannon
Imagine logging on to your Internet account and checking your email. You reply to a few messages and then decide to visit YouTube and watch that funny video your cousin emailed you a link for… but when you get there you find that the video is playing choppy, like Satellite TV in a hurricane, and not just that video but every video on YouTube plays that way for you. What would you do?
Maybe call your ISP (Internet service provider)? What if they told you that they’ve decided you use the Internet too much, so they’re slowing your access unless you agree to pay a higher monthly rate.
What if when you ask “how much is too much?” they explain that there is no answer to that, it depends on your location, hours of activity and possibly the mood of the technician reviewing your account at the moment the decision to slow your access is made.
Despite the garbage misinformation that ISPs and TeleComs have been spreading around, even starting and organizing fake grassroots groups to promote their misleading crap, the hypothetical scenario above is exactly what would happen to millions of people every day if ISPs and the TeleComs get their way and Washington were to dispel Net Neutrality and authorize these companies to become the gatekeepers of the Internet.
Maybe you’re thinking “so what? He with the most money wins…” and this is just capitalism at work. Well, there’s another side to the story that’s equally alarming. You see, not only do these companies want [plan?] to have tiered levels of rates for end user customers, but once they control the gates they also intend to charge premium fees to web site owners for fast lane vs. slow lane data delivery to site visitors.
Yep, even though you are willing and able to pay a premium fee for your access, maybe YouTube owner, Google Inc., is not and so you will still not be able to watch your favorite videos without the hurricane chop anyway. This is a classic example of double-dipping.
And it won’t just be YouTube or other major commercial sites, but any site including personal blogs, stamp collecting clubs, news or whatever sites will have to pay for fast lane delivery of their data to visitors or suffer deadly slow page loads and a complete inability to offer any sort of useful media online.
But wait, surely Google and other wealthy companies would pay for the fast lane deliveries, so what’s the problem? You might think that’s true but let’s look at just how that would work first. There are hundreds and hundreds of ISPs here in North America, so web site owners would have to pay a fast lane delivery premium to every one of them to ensure that users weren’t throttled into the slow lane.
That’s because the Internet works by routing requests and data transfers across multiple networks, meaning when you visit a web site the data will likely travel across well over a dozen different ISPs before it gets displayed on your browser, and if even 1 of them throttles the data into a slow lane you suffer.
Worse than double-dipping and unfair business practices, when you really look at this it seems a lot like ISPs and TeleComs are lobbying for legalized extortion.
Be informed… be proactive… or be duped.
Image source: www.coretrace.com
buxtohispano.com 
3 Responses to “Network Neutrality”
By rachel | Reply to article
You need to practice what you preach, Scott Brannon, the investigation is real and if looked even futher would land you where you don’t want to be.
sincerely
rachel
Reply to this specific comment
By Scott Bannon | Reply to article
Rachel, uh… what investigation would that be you’re referring to?
And I’m certain it wouldn’t land me anywhere, but maybe you have me confused with this Scott Brannon guy?
Scott Bannon
Reply to this specific comment
By creative | Reply to article
Welcome to the Hell
Reply to this specific comment