I was going to write about this a few days ago, but I’m wondering if it’s getting too politicized? I have this ‘no partisan politics’ policy here. My suspicion is, this is still on the right side of my line – but close.
I have written about Network Neutrality before. Network Neutrality refers to a defining principle of the Internet – all packets are created equal. Geofffox.com gets the same treatment as google.com as far as your ISP goes.
As is the case when phone companies act as phone companies, they are not looking at the content of what you’re receiving. Without Network Neutrality, packets could be sniffed to assign them a priority – and you probably will have no say in what that priority is and how it’s applied.
I like Network Neutrality. Make no mistake about it, it benefits me. But I also think it’s good for the Internet. New businesses and fresh business ideas are hatched online all the time. I’d like to see the cost of entry kept low. Should new businesses have to bid against EBay or Yahoo! to get to my house on time?
AT&T, Bell South and other carriers would like to charge extra for ‘enhanced’ carriage – a guarantee of expeditious delivery through network traffic. I read some remarks from a Bell South rep… and it made sense. He made analogies to charging more for a first class airline seat.
I understand what he’s saying, but I still don’t buy in.
On one side of this argument are the ISPs, like the Baby Bells. The other side are the Googles and Microsofts and geofffox.com. So far, in the first vote in Congress, the carriers won.
I read this on a site called savetheinternet.com: