Saturday, September 4, 2010

Net Neutrality

The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web.
Some large Internet and telecommunications companies are talking, however, about creating a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane and a slow lane. Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, came out with a joint proposal that took a different approach. In a joint policy statement they issued in August 2010 they proposed that regulators enforce those principles on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called "additional, differentiated online services."
In other words, on mobile phones or on special access lanes, carriers like Verizon and AT&T could charge content companies a toll for faster access to customers or, some analysts worry, block certain services from reaching customers altogether.
The proposal set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls. Google and Verizon defended the exemptions by saying that they were giving carriers the flexibility they need to ensure that the Internet's infrastructure remains "a platform for innovation." Carriers say they need to be able to manage their networks as they see fit and generate revenue to expand them.
Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission has come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so has been in doubt since a federal appeals decision in April 2010 restricted its authority over broadband service.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

2 comments:

  1. Concerns about open networks are not limited to access to Web sites, and they are not hypothetical. In 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected Naral Pro-Choice America’s request to send text messages over its network, a decision Verizon reversed after an outpouring of criticism. Recently, Apple was criticized for rejecting an iPhone application, Google Voice, an Internet-based service that would permit users to make low-cost calls without using AT&T, which has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in this country. (Apple said it is still considering the application.) The F.C.C. is investigating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/08/10/technology/1247468602445/net-neutrality.html?ref=net_neutrality

    ReplyDelete