“A” and “B” series for Internet? No thanks!
AT&T, leader in american telecommunications, has took a role in the silent game for the Net Neutrality.
First of all, what is Net Neutrality and who is playing a role in the game?
On one side we can found the Internet Service Providers (like Verizon, BellSouth, Comcast and now AT&T) and on the other side the Content Providers. US government is going to create a law to preserve the Net Neutrality, a single speed network that could be accessible by anyone. Instead of this ISPs are trying to grant a two speed Internet to grant better access to those who will pay more, in order to create two customers typology.
No Thanks! Why?
If, from one side, you would be able to afford the prices of the high speed connection, this would mean a fast navigation through certain high-speed sites and content provider, from the other side with a low-band connection nothing will change. The fact is that we should keep in mind that the two speeds will not be applied only to the final users, but also on the content providers.
First of all this will mean that the content providers will have more expences to grant the users a larger bandwidth.
Think to all those who base their job on free contents (wikipedia for example) and that is going to live with some donations and some fundraisers. Will they be able to pay a large bill for the “A” series connection? Will they start requiring a little fee to everyone of the user to support the improved speed (that only few will be able to use)?
In this case the Net will become less “For Free“, because every Content Provider, to survive, will start asking some fee to pay the higher connection. This will start a chain reaction that will improve the speed, but that will cost a lot of money to every user, not only those who will take the SuperFastNet…
Of course in this post I am not talking about the non end user connection, that will connect the companies for B2B (Business To Business) applications. The fact is that AT&T had declared (through his Vice President voice, mr Cicconi) that all this will be resumed with three words: Sell Online Films!
So, the B2B hypothesis has nothing to do with this “Two Speed Net”, because their target are only the final users, not other things!
I believe that this would generate a big crack between those who will be able to afford the SuperSpeedBills and those who will not, widening the economical distance between the First Class Men and the other.
This is Unfair!
The Net is a place where, more or less, everyone is on the same level. I will never be able to afford 150$ monthly bill to grant you the capability to download a movie that you would get five times faster on another website. So this will become a “B” series website (ok, even if now it is worst than a simple “B” series… it would become worst…:) )
Let’s keep Internet a place where the socio-economical differences are still not so high as in the real world, grant everyone the possibility to express itself!
Without an “A” and “B” series for the pride (and the money) of few!
I share your concern about maintaining a fair and free Internet experience. Dont we, as end users, have a certain responsibility to ensure those freedoms? However, if consumers prefer to have certain sites at higher speeds, won’t their voice be heard through their pocketbook?
What I mean is that, ultimately, companies will conform their services to their customer base. To my knowledge there are few, if any, instances of services actually blocking sites. So what we have is the opportunity for companies to hone their offering to suit their customers.
Don’t like it? Subscribe to someone else!
Hi Internet Freedom
What I am talking about is not a block of contents, is not choosing a content provider or another, because the problem will be another one.
Confirming the service to the customers base is something quite normal, and not limited to the internet world, what would not be normal would be a Content Provider that would allow you the entrance on his site only if you have a Fast Internet. It’s like a hotel that would allow you the entrance only inf you have a Ferrari! This is NOT related on if you can afford the price of the room, but it is related on how much money can you show.
Yes, places like this exists, but it doesn’t mean that I agree with this kind of view. In fact I don’t, and I don’t understand why I will not be able to donwnload a “movie” (for example) if I haven’t a Fast Connection.
I must be able to choose to download from them, even if my connection is a normal one.
I do not agree with this view. I can agree if soumenone tells me that I can have the same contents ten times faster with the ADSL2. That’s ok, but having it or not is a personal decision.
This two speed would only be a strengthen of the Digital Divide Gap, and I cannot agree on that.
Would AT&T grant the users a ADSL2 to get their movies at 100MByte per seconds: Great! But allowing this only for those who can get at that speed would not be fair.
Do you really disagree on this?
Cheers
It seems that every time the net neutrality deabte comes up those in favor of it play the “fairness” card. The complaint is that if anything about using the internet changes, i.e. cost, it’s somehow no longer fair.
Well, as far as I am concerned, fairness doesn’t just apply to the consumer. Companies like AT&T and Verizon don’t just provide bandwidth, they also pay to create the infrastructure, and that isn’t cheap. If they don’t do something to recover the costs for recent updates they will be unfairly forced to eat BILLIONS of dollars in costs to promote fairness to consumers and content providers. What is needed is balance and cost sharing, not some utopian net neutrality.
well, good on you, pkp, for stating an incredibly unpopular and rarely heard argument for the telcos. it’s a sound and logical position, imho. having said that, i understand why people don’t want to take the telcos at their word when they promise not to block, degrade or otherwise limit service. i also think it’s unfair to drag congress into the mix BEFORE there is an actual problem. the bottom line for me is that consumers have both a free market and current FCC authority to protect them…why do we need NEW regulations for a problem that has yet to occur?
Not to mention, oldhats, that regulation will likely stifle competition and innovation at the exact time that this country needs new ideas and initiatives just to catch up with countries that are already well ahead of us in terms of broadband capabilities. All of this regulatory talk just seems like it will cause many more problems than the imaginary one it looks to solve.
Social engineering does not belong in the debate over whether the U.S. government is going to support advancement of internet technologies, or through expanded regulations, it is going to stymie the Internet’s magnificent organic growth. The Net Neutrality proponents fail to recognize that advancement in technology, while having its costs in the short run, in the long run increases everyone’s quality and lowers the cost of these new technologies. Government regulators should remain cautious and keep a close eye on internet providers so that if abuses do occur they are adequately addressed. However, favoring “the status quo” over future internet technologies is a situation where all consumers would lose.
Hello everyone!
First of all I want to underline that my post is not related in any way with the technological advancement of the Net. Until now there has been only one speed, that has been developed through the years. My first modem was a 14.4k and now I’m using a 4 Mbits, but no content provider stopped me from downloading a file because I got no 56k modem at the beginning.
I am not talking about limiting the bandwidth or limiting the future development, but allowing everyone to access every content.
The “fairness” as PKP646 is related only to the capability of everyone to access EVERY resource on the network. If one day you will not be able to access wikipedia or a possible FoxDownload only because your connection is not the latest one, what would you think?
I know that the development of the infrastructure is not cheap, but it is NOT a good reason to create a two speed network. The Utopian Net Neutrality you are telling us is not the thing that will block them…
For what OLDHATS said… well I think that the prevention is better than the cure. Your government is going to provide a prevention for the creation of the two speed internet, because they know that the economical implications will be higher. Without a regulation it could result in some good money for few, but a loss of money for a lot of other people, that cover the economical status of the US. Don’t you agree on this?
And what about stiffling the competition? Do you really believe that creating a network where only few will be able to survive (mainly corporations) will higher the competition? I do not, because in the actual situation there is a real competition and if someone will create a faster network it will mean that they will get more customers, both from the Users and the Contents Providers side!
Why? It is only going to tell that the technological advancement must be available for everyone; then who will choose the new technology will be advantaged!
I think that you should recognise that behind the request to create a two-level Net is only the need to force the user to put all their money only in some corporation, and not in others.
Net Neutrality, IMHO, is NOT a utopic thoughts or a limitation to the technology, but it is a Fair Use, where everyone should be free to be decide which company to work with. USA is based on free competition, isn’t it? So why do you agree on something that would limit the competition only to few powerful corporations that will start ruling internet? This is the fact: someone will start ruling the Net a little bit, removing “de facto” the heterogeneity of the Net.
Net Neutrality does not seem to be a limitation to the technological innovation, but it seems more a Free Competition field, obviously only In My Humble Opinion!
By the way, welcome to all of you on FCHouse, and please, try to explain more clearly your thought, because I think we are discussing with too many prejudices, including myself.
Carlo- I appreciate your serious comments, but I still think that your wrong about this. I agree, it would be terrible if content was genuinely blocked because someone was on the “old” network, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. From what I understand, tiered access is an issue about charging content providers more for their increased bandwidth use, that is, those bandwidth hogs will have to pay more to guarantee a stable, fast, and reliable network. The immediate concern then is about who will be able to pay for such a thing, that is, can the start-up afford the cost? The truth is, I don’t know. The details are so far down the road that I won’t waste anyone’s guessing, but I do know that I prefer the matter to stay out of the government’s hands. It just seems better that way.
Hi PKP646
The fact is that the providers will be able to limit the access to some content providers for the “A” series level users!
My thought is that if they will be able to offer a faster connection (50MBit/sec), the users will be tempted to switch to the new speed… I agree with this! I agree with the development of the new tecniques to go faster!
What I do not agree with is the fact that if you don’t switch to the new “FasterNet” you will not being able to access some contents!
It’s like a 56k modem connected would not be able to access the news on CNN only because CNN has decided to be a “Fast Content Provider“!!!!! Is it correct??
I don’t want to guess “who will be able to afford the prices”, because there are no real things to discuss on, but basing my thought on the fact that there is the need to implement a new Network let me believe that the prices will not be so easy to afford.
But, of course, if the content provider will move to the new standard all the user who will be able to access those contents will be forsed to move to the new Network.
As it is now the network can substain a lot of improvements before the real need of a drastic switch!
obviously IMHO!