FCC to weigh in on net neutrality
- Posted by: JP Smith | September 21, 2009
- Filed Under: Internet, Business, Government and Politics
For a few years now, net neutrality has been a hot-button issue. Net neutrality, in short, is the notion that broadband carriers should not be able to limit how certain content is delivered based on the content creator's size or ability to pay. Many broadband carriers have proposed a "tiered internet" where, if you were an Amazon or Google, you would be able to pay to have your content delivered speedily whereas, if you were say a WeKnowTech.com, your content would be relegated to a slow lane.
Net neutrality also says that, if you are a Time Warner, for instance, you can't make it difficult for a company like Hulu or Netflix to deliver content over your network because you consider them to have a competing technology.
Now, after several years and an administration change, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is finally weighing in on the net neutrality issue and it appears to bode favorably for advocates of the principle.
"The proposal, to be announced Monday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, will include an additional guideline for carriers that they make public the way they manage traffic on their network, according to sources at the agency. The additional guideline would be a "sixth principle" to four existing guidelines adopted in 2005 on Internet network operations. A fifth principle is expected to be announced by Genachowski on Monday during a speech at the Brookings Institute that would prohibit the discrimination of applications and services on telecommunications, cable and wireless Internet networks."
I have long been a proponent for net neutrality not only because I am the proverbial "little guy" but, also, because I see carriers wanting to charge more because it keeps up the illusion that they can't afford to beef up their networks. I'm old enough to remember that, in the 90's, telcoms were given over $200 billion to beef up their networks, promising to lay fiber that would provide 86 million home with 45Mbps internet connections for about $40/month. To top it off, we were also supposed to be able to get 500 cable channels. This was all supposed to happen by 2006. How'd that work out for us?
Additionally, when you see companies like Time Warner complain that they have to implement things like metering schemes because if how it is taxing their infrastructure when, at the same time, you see their costs of delivering internet service go down and profits soar, you know that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Telcoms want to tell us that net neutrality is bad because it hurts them and their networks but, I say what are you doing with the $40-$100 your millions of subscribers are paying you every month? Perhaps if you didn't just take the money and run, you would spend the money on infrastructure and stop coming up with these straw-man arguments.
If you are already registered, please log in here.
(Not Registered? Create your account here.)
