Without net neutrality, will consumers pay twice?

Consumers of Internet will probably have to pay much more if broadband providers are given the freedom of instituting a tiered service. If this happens, customers will have fewer choices and the costs charged to companies like Amazon.com, eBay, Google, and Microsoft will have to pass on their costs to their customers. Customers will either agree to pay more or go elsewhere. Do you think this is fair for the customers and/or the companies?

Read more.

Gamers hurting from bandwidth

So this is what it has come to.

Gamers having to change their playing time because ISPs can't offer the proper bandwidth during peak times. I wonder how this particular demographic will affect the outcome of net neutrality legislation...

O.o

What is Net Neutrality?

So are big dot com's just trying to hoard money? Is this why they want net neutrality?

Net Neutrality - A Royal Fable

Here is an interesting video against net neutrality.

How this will affect you

I found this great website that lists how a lack of net neutrality will affect many different groups, from political groups to teachers. It also lists what several companies, such as AT&T have planned, such as hike up prices. ISPs have already discriminated against websites. This site lists four instances, albeit two are from Canada. "In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme." So should we be worried? I'm not sure. Since there's only two cases since 2004, I don't think that's too bad. Canada has it worse than us here in the USA. It's an interesting site worth a look at.

Battle lines draws over net neutrality

The graphic above show the three sides to net neutrality. To find out more, click on this.


Supporters of net neutrality want new laws to pass prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitor's networks. If internet service providers allow preferential treatment to certain Web traffic, small broadband providers will suffer. Pac-West, an independent telecom provider, in Stockton, California fears that lack of laws on net neutrality will give large broadband providers the edge to block internet traffic from smaller providers.

Broadband providers like AT&T and BellSouth oppose net neutrality. These providers want to charge e-commerce companies fees in order to get the preferential treatment for their sites. Under AT&T and BellSouths' new business plan, fees that would be charged to e-commerce companies would cover the costs to broadband providers.

S 215: Internet Freedom Preservation Act

Here is a bill in Senate trying to protect net neutrality. It was introduced by Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Olympia Snowe of Maine. They have tried to pass this bill in the past and succeeded. "It would ensure that all content, applications and services are equally accessible, prohibiting broadband network operators from blocking, degrading, or prioritizing service on their networks." S 215 would amend the Communications Act. The FCC can enforce fines on businesses that don't follow this bill, if passed. On this site it states that "Under current law they [broadband providers] can select preferred content that would move faster for consumers than other content which would unfairly be slower." This bill has been in the Senate since January 9, 2007. California's own Barbara Boxer is a supporter of this bill. So tell your state's Senator that you want this bill passed!