Net Neutrality And You!

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/fcc-priority-access-deals-unlikely-to-get-past-new-open-internet-rules.ars' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ernet-rules.ars</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Federal Communications Commission is releasing the details of its new net neutrality Order in stages. Although the FCC's new ban on "unreasonable discrimination" for wired ISPs allows certain kinds of traffic discrimination (not all bits need be equal), the agency made clear after today's meeting that "paid prioritization" deals with Internet companies are unlikely to be allowed."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1293116452.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>If you have read any technology related news site for the past few years, you probably have heard of the term "Net Neutrality."&nbsp; It is supposed to be one of the founding concepts of the Internets but everyone appears to have their own concept of what it actually means and what it should mean where applied to our burgeoning digital landscape.&nbsp; It is important to pay attention to what is happening since this can directly affect what services you get on the Internet.&nbsp; Aside from the potential for limiting innovation, it can lead towards favoured services, or even more costly services.&nbsp; And what gets decided in the United States is likely to affect other countries, even if they do not adopt similar policies.</p>

[Sven Johannsen]

Fascinating argument twisting on the side of the carriers. From the article.

"The First Amendment protects the right not just to decide what to say, but how to say it," National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow declared (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/big-cable-pro-net-neutrality-arguments-turn-first-amendment-on-its-head.ars) last year. "Does the First Amendment really allow the government to prohibit a content or applications provider from paying to acquire the means to distribute its content in the form or manner it wishes?"
The intent is not to disallow a provider from being able to pay to deliver content, but to prohibit him to be able to pay to be the only one to deliver content. Then ramafications are significant. Given the right for AT&T wireless to 'manage' traffic, they could argue that VoIP traffic must be managed for the good of the network, and block it, throttle it, or charge a premium for it, either to the consumer or the VoIP provider.