Quote:
Originally Posted by dgridley
What I'm worried about is the prospect of tiered access.. ISP's charging for limited access to only certain areas of the Net vs full access.
|
I remember reading something similar to this. How did it go, websites would pay isp providers so much $$$ so customers can access their websites. If you didn't pay the isp they would block people from getting to your website.
Only large companies with $$$ would benefit while small business would close it's doors. Reminds me of Wal-mart.
I'm not sure if this is 100% correct but that's what I remember. Guess I could do a search. I just did a search and found this below:
Advocates of network neutrality contend that any non-neutral scheme could allow ISPs to unfairly discriminate and control which data they prioritize, such as data from
their own sponsors or media interests:
"[These companies] want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all"..."tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data."..."to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while
slowing down or blocking their competitors"..."to reserve express lanes for their own content and services.[3]
On February 7, 2006, Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol (IP), and current Vice President and "Chief Internet Evangelist" at Google, in testimony before Congress, said, "allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."[35]
At the same time, the nation's largest phone and cable companies have spoken out in media about their plans to violate network neutrality principles by filtering content and favoring Web sites and applications of companies that pay them an extra fee.
More info can be found below:
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
