Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
That's the net neutrality question, which is different from the blocking voip question. Net neutrality is providers wanting to make extra profit by giving some packets priority so that streaming movies, etc., operate as expected.
|
Net neutrality also means having plenty of choices - no monopoly. But then Comcast and Verizon got PA state laws changed so that the Earthlink system in Philadelphia could not be duplicated in any other PA city. Is that net neutrality or net neutrality threatened?
Once I hear a claim that something could never possibly happen - and that is a commonly held consensus - then I get suspicious. Skype example obviously was not a prediction. It was another example of how net neutrality could so easily be compromised. UT somehow got so caught up in the details as to forgot why that example was provided. it was only another example of how net neutrality can be compromised when we are not looking.
If Comcast and Verizon, et al were trying to compromise net neutrality, then it would not happen in six months as UT suggests. It would occur slowly over a decade plus. But again, UT forgot the purpose of that Skype example. It demonstrated but another example of how net neutrality could be compromised.
I don't believe for one minute that companies such as Verizon, Comcast, and Bell South would be satisfied only being data carriers - curators of dumb networks. Repeated threats to apply surcharges to large net providers such as Ebay remain real. Meg Whitman of Ebay is quoted in CNet:
Quote:
"The telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet," Whitman wrote. "It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future." ...
On May 25, one House of Representatives panel voted in favor of formal Net neutrality regulations bitterly opposed by AT&T, Verizon Communications and other broadband providers--while another House panel rejected such regulations on April 5.
For their part, network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds.
|
That is not net neutrality. Therefore so many companies inclusing Google and Amazon have good reasons to concerned. If net neutrality was not threatened, then why are these largest companies all proclaiming a fear that net neutrality was slowly being threatened? (And obviously not in six months.)
Verizon, Bell South, Comcast, etc all want to be content providers as well as controller all the channels. Currently they are data movers - curators of a dumb network which is why net neutrality existss. They are not yet content providers on the Internet. They already control what you can access on TV and can do with phones. Why would they not want to do same on that other technology - Internet.. Cable TV never was neutral which is why cable TV prices rise from $8 per month to $60 - and will only increase. It took court orders to permit connecting things such as fax machines to the phone network. These channel providers would be willing to leave the only 'open' network alone? I doubt it.
Again, the Skype example was but another example of how net neutrality can slowly be compromised - one step at a time. Just one of maybe hundreds or thousands of methods available in a technical bag of tricks. Six months to compromise Skype everywhere? Absurd. Not how net neutrality would be compromised. |
