|
 The US Department of Justice has declared themselves against Network Neutrality. The background of this issue is that ISPs and internet providers earn £15 and upwards a month for providing access to the Internet. But unlike similar subscription services such as Sky Movies and Virgin cable, they don't pay for the content on the Internet. They don't even cover the costs of your phone line. They just provide the means for you to get more data down your phone line than you normally would.
That said, no one really minds, they do a job that needs doing and they make up for the crummy deal with dependable access and decent telephone support (ahem).
However, strangely, these telecoms companies, aren't satisified with the deal, and have decided that in future the costs of providing this more-data-down-your-phone-line-than-before service to customers is going to go up so much that they're going to need to start charging content producers to send data down that phone line. ie YouTube, the BBC and even you and me.
Which, as you can imagine, apart from being a little ungrateful, in
light of the billions of pounds us content producers are earning the
cable and telecoms companies, means that the web will no longer be the
free equal level playing field it currently is. Those who can afford to
show their content on the web at high speeds will manage to, while
those who don't, won't. It removes the founding neutral principle of
the internet whereby all data is equal, whether it has come from a
Google server in California, or a home in Shanghai.
Some even suggest that this is a backdoor way for powers to censor
the web, given that the most controversial or critical sources of news,
video or comment are most commonly from people not rolling in cash.
Intentional or not, censorship is an inevitable consequence, and anyone who
wants to avoid a future where all content distribution is in the hands of a
few rich megacorporations should probably write to their MP or senator,
or at least join the campaign.
 |
Show/Hide comment form