The encouragement for cloud-storage and streaming video vs. maintaining local files has created a ripe opportunity for ISP’s to argue that they should be allowed to charge websites according to usage. This of course then leads to legislation that would also allow the ISP to give slower loading speeds for other websites in a non-arbitrary or discriminatory fashion.
The icing on the cake becomes the parasitic nature of cellular phone use, where iPhones especially are programmed to latch onto any free wifi access for their video streaming. Noted myself that when tried to establish a free guest signal from my home wifi, every iPhone in the vicinity latched on and quickly ran up the bandwidth usage to extraordinary amounts.
And now we are crying for net neutrality? While there is little to no mitigation of the factors that endangered the net neutrality in the first place.
Charging twice for the same service seems inherently wrong – if websites are to be charged or preferred in terms of bandwidth usage, then consumers should not have to pay at all for their internet service. But of course, the ISP’s would rather get everyone coming and going.
My thoughts are that those services that charge consumers for video streaming, such as Netflix and Hulu Plus — should share a piece of their pie with the ISP. The exclusive libraries which charge for membership — same thing. Any site that receives a direct profit from the consumer, should have that balanced against the weight of the corresponding bandwidth usage.
And then services like CBS news or PBS news videos, that do NOT charge consumers a fee for watching — would not be subject to any additional costs from the ISP.
And thirdly, the charges levied by the ISP on fee-based sites would not create a “fast-lane” for those sites. For the most part–and to my understanding–the only way to create a “fast lane” in the first place is to choke everything else. (Even with newer tech to create the proverbial “fast lane” – is matter of equally distributing that tech to entire internet.)
And so this is the issue regarding net-neutrality and it’s importance over long-term growth of free speech within the internet. Access to adequate bandwidth inherently goes hand in hand with the large degree of back-scratching that already takes place in U.S. business communities. And in THAT sense, giving a company (like Comcast) the right to choke signals or not (in addition to their regional monopolies) is far too much power in the hands of an aficionado of the entertainment industry.
AND — it has already happened. Court judgment 4 years ago, the FCC against Comcast–and Comcast WON. So I can only imagine that the current fuss over net neutrality is regarding the IMPLEMENTATION of currently granted rights to choke or not choke any website of their choosing.
The war was already lost, with little to no protest and of course not terribly publicized. Since then, you have been living with an internet where some websites miraculously appear faster than others. So my thought, is that if we can lay down groundwork for a REGULATED fashion of bandwidth discrimination — is better than the behind-doors one that is in place already.