Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
The 800-pound gorillas are in secret meetings to provide premium 'go-faster' Internet service
It's been a long time since we've heard anything about the Net Neutrality Debate. The last thing we heard was that the FCC wants the Internet to remain neutral (or the American portion of it at least), but for the FCC to have authority over ISPs, and major players like Google and Amazon, the Internet would have to become more formalized. As it stands, the Internet is just an 'information service', and thus has very little regulation.Fast forward to today and it seems like something big might be about to happen. The FCC is pushing for the Internet to become a 'telecommunications service', a double-edged classification that brings both more regulation and security for the end-users. It's a tricky one: the FCC is in favor of net neutrality, but there's so much pressure from content providers and ISPs that it seems like we (or at least the USA) are about to pay a lot more for high-quality Internet access. The New York Times provides an excellent analogy: it will be like paying for premium cable or satellite TV channels. For just $9.99 per month you can have faster YouTube access! For $19.99 you can get YouTube, Vimeo and CollegeHumor!
This isn't, in essence, a bad thing. It's just a natural progression. The FCC has realised, rather wisely, that it's better to put some reins on the benevolent, capitalist beast before it turns on its rider. Today, Amazon or Comcast could simply ban an entire geographic (or demographic) zone from accessing its services. The FCC wants to make sure monetary concerns don't override the importance of a free (in every sense of the word) Internet.
The problem is: the FCC deliberations are taking an awful long time -- too long for antsy ISPs that want to get a bit more bang for their buck. There are only anonymous sources so far, but it seems like Google, in association with Verizon, might jump the gun and enact their own solution: tiered access to Google's services. Want 3G or 4G access to YouTube on your Android phone? It'll cost you a bit extra.
'Freemium' Internet here we come: fed up with poor-quality and constantly-dropping video calls? Pay for prioritized bandwidth! You want peer-to-peer access with other Internet users? That'll cost you too!
I can hardly wait...
Update: Google has stated that they're not in talks with Verizon. So... who knows what's going on...
Comments
20
Subscribe to commentsjohndandison.comAug 5th 2010 8:41AM
For the past couple weeks, I've been lamenting the lack of any decent internet providers in North Carolina. When we showed up dead last on the netindex ratings for upload speed, I started calling around - U-Verse is hardly available, and TWC said there were no DOCSIS 3.0 plans for Charlotte. Fast forward to Tuesday of this week, and TWC now offers a 50mb x 5mb pipe in Charlotte for a slightly higher monthly fee. There was virtually no word of it until I got something in the mail asking to join a 'pilot.'
These providers have to start having some competition or regulation. Going from a max upload of 512k to 5mb is a big jump - so they've obviously been keeping things low for quite some time, and I'm skeptical it's been totally based on available technology. While it sucks that we'll end up paying for service that we should receive as part of a normal package, at least those who can afford it have options now.
Sebastian AnthonyAug 5th 2010 8:43AM
Some federal agency thing just promised to sink $1.2 billion into rural broadband connections, incidentally!
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180154/Feds_release_1.2B_in_broadband_grants
robotrockAug 5th 2010 8:43AM
"The FCC has realised, rather wisely, that it's better to put some reins on the benevolent, capitalist beast before it turns on its rider"
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
stinlen56Aug 5th 2010 8:48AM
The whole article is written from a British perspective that doesn't fully grasp the free market principles. I agree, this statement is completely wrong on many levels.
I think the worse problem is that Sebastian thinks it's ok to direct companies who they have to sell to. Of course, profit seeking companies in a competitive environment won't arbitrarily exclude geographic regions, but if they did, who are we to tell them how to operate? Some other company will meet the needs, then another company will do the same thing cheaper. The essence of capitalistic competition.
Sebastian AnthonyAug 5th 2010 8:51AM
You understand that America, with its awesome free market-inspired ISPs, has worse Internet than almost all of Europe's ex-communist Eastern Bloc?
toddAug 5th 2010 9:06AM
"You understand that America, with its awesome free market-inspired ISPs, has worse Internet than almost all of Europe's ex-communist Eastern Bloc?"
You understand that you're repeating false urban legends? The US is 16th in the world for internet connection speeds. Yes, it could be faster, but we also have a lot more challenges in deploying higher speed solutions in the vast rural areas of the mid-west. Speeds in cities are comparable to speeds in Europe.
Here's the top 16 in order: South Korea, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, Switzerland, Taiwan, Belgium, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Israel, Japan, Finland, Singnapore, then USA. Don't see any former soviet bloc countries in that list.
Sebastian AnthonyAug 5th 2010 9:11AM
Yes, the speed is inflated by the highly-developed east and west coast markets.
Are you really saying that broadband providers are competing in America's rural areas...? Are the prices being competitively lowered?
Last I checked, American broadband users are being fleeced because there's little to no competition for high-speed connections.
toddAug 5th 2010 9:49AM
Yes, there is actually competition in rural America. My wife's family lives on a farm in southern Illinois and there are a few high speed providers to choose from, not to mention satellite based internet service which is available almost everywhere in the US. They pay about the same for their DSL connection as I do in a large city, but their connection speed is pretty poor in comparison.
The problem is that DSL and cable modem technology, the primary means of connecting to the internet in the US, has a number of technical hurdles to overcome to increase speeds when there isn't an end office within a few miles. IDSL is the best technology available and only works for subscribers within 5 miles, and the further you are from the end office the slower the connection. Cable modem technology suffers from similar issues.
Yet in rural areas, a farm can be 5 miles just to the next farm and 20 miles from the nearest end office. Since there are less subscribers per square mile, and higher deployment costs for high speed internet due to these distance transmission issues, their costs are higher per Mbps of bandwidth.
It makes sense given that it's much more costly for the providers on a per subscriber basis. That's why the government is offering grants to expand rural internet access, like the one you sited in an earlier comment. WiMax is seemingly the ideal solution for rural areas, but it's still too costly to deploy in low population density areas.
More importantly, and tying back into the article, none of these issues are going to be solved (or even helped) by charging $9.99 more for prioritized access to certain sites or a specific type of IP packet traffic.
simonAug 5th 2010 10:43AM
We British do understand the free market system, we just know it doesn't work very well. Capitalism is a great thing, as long as it is in service of society and one thing Europe and Britain has to be proud of is our society.
A strongly regulated market, may not be as dynamic or provide growth as fast but it avoids the more undesirable effects of things like financial crashes or giant oil spills.
The individual should always be greater than the company.
toddAug 5th 2010 8:52AM
How many people do you think will really pay $9.99 a month for faster YouTube? Look at how unsuccessful sites have been when going from free to paid access. And the comparison to HBO & Showtime doesn't really equate because there's relatively few television channels to choose from, but there's millions of web sites and lots of competition. Combine this with a bad economy and it'll be the biggest failure on the web since its invention. The vast, vast majority of people aren't going to be willing to cough up more money for their internet access. If sites like Google start teaming up with ISPs in a revenue share for better access, it'll only promote use of competing sites that are free.
Sebastian AnthonyAug 5th 2010 8:55AM
Hehe, will the whole point is that free access could become untenably slow. When it takes 10 minutes to download a 5 minute YouTube video... you will sign up.
(Or people will move to other services that are free/fast -- but... yeah, who knows how this will go.)
FragasAug 5th 2010 9:55AM
This is a more complex debate than the way you are putting it. It's obvious that you believe that this will solve a lot of issues and that is pretty justifiable to end with net neutrality. The arguments you present can in a sense be considered reasonable, but how about to pinpoint all disadvantages that comes from there? Do you honestly believe that to put premium services (or tolls in the information highway) will create a better Internet? First they have to give an Internet access for free before close the highways. If we believe that first they put tools and then give the free stuff we are being naive. Honestly, your article seems quite naive too...
OskieeAug 5th 2010 9:55AM
What im more afraid of is a scenario where services like Netflix and Hulu are throttled vs other services, say in this case, what if youtube started offering similar services as netflix and hulu, and verizon gives "preferred access" to youtube.
Im not going to like a system that im going to have to pay twice for access to something.
OskieeAug 5th 2010 9:58AM
Or worse, what if Google gives preferred only access to only Verizon. ie. if your not a Verizon customer, you get less Google features...
Ug... this can go so badly for us.
note: Im not a Verizon customer. Im just generally worried about this
RichardAug 5th 2010 11:28AM
Bear in mind that you aren't paying more for a faster site, you're just paying more for a site which hasn't been throttled.
It's quite a big difference.
JoeAug 5th 2010 12:03PM
This sounds like a protection racket to me. Here's how I see this idea:
Google: Hey there, internet subscriber. Looks like you really enjoy them YouTubes, eh?
User: Sure do! They're the best! Double rainbow all the way!
Google: Yea, yea, I getcha. They sure are great. It'd be a shame if they got slower, though. You never know, things could happen. Connections could get throttled.
User: ...........what are you trying to say?
Google: Me? Oh nothin. Just having a friendly conversation. Lemme give you a little word of advice, though. See my friend Verizon here?
User: Yea...
Google: Verizon could make sure that none of that throttling business could happen to you.
User: What would I have to do?
Verizon: Oh, you know. Nothin much. Just hand over a little extra cash each month, and I'll be sure to protect you from those nasty bandwidth throttles.
User: Well, I really don't have the cash to spare...
Verizon: Awe, that's a shame. A real shame. You know, connections could get hurt, though. You should really invest in some protection. You never know. Them tubes you like so much might start going much slower.
User: ...
User: Fine...I'll pay up.
Google and Verizon: Attaboy!
mer2329Aug 5th 2010 1:24PM
this could be a double-edged sword as it would open the possibility of helping create a publicly accessible internet service and yes you would pay for higher speeds (that already happens (ie AT&T Uverse http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/internet-landing.jsp))
that should in theory lower the price but the company's may lose money and they don't want that so they may up the price to make up the difference
at least I recall the talks starting like this (but I may be mistaken)
that is also meant to ensure that anybody can access any site at any time
HubbaBubbaAug 5th 2010 4:35PM
'For just $9.99 per month you can have faster [ABC] ! For $19.99 you can get [ABC and XYZ] !
This isn't, in essence, a bad thing.'
Are you kidding? This is the very "anti-definition" of net-neutrality.
The idea of tiered neutrality is an oxymoron.
There is nothing neutral about someone else determining for me which venues of "free" information i have to pay more to get equal service.
Net neutrality in a free market should look like the following:
'For just $9.99 per month you can have [ABC and XYZ] ! For $19.99 you can get even faster [ABC] !
Tristan PhillipsAug 6th 2010 10:19AM
Still waiting for a concrete example that proves that we need more government regulation AKA "Net Neutrality". And I don't mean a hypothetical. I mean an actual case that is happening right now.
BTW, you do realize the FCC has no/none/zip/nada authority to do Net Neutrality and has no authority, right? And do you REALLY want ISPs to be run like the baby Bells? Honestly?
JamesAug 6th 2010 10:51AM
I think I like the current system just the way it is. The last thing I want is the government involved in any of this.
As far as the supposed "competition" in the U.S. for broadband. I think some are confusing the situation. Just because you see 50 companies selling net access to the consumer, doesn't mean there is plenty of competition. 48 of those companies are all leasing the pipe from the same company.
And when you drill down to the consumer level, in many cases it's just as bad. I live in Phoenix, AZ - the 5th largest city in the U.S. I have a choice between Cox Communications cable internet and Qwest DSL. That's it. And really, Cox is the only option for power users, because it is infinitely faster than DSL here. So tell me again where the "competition" is?