One thing I don't hear in all the Net Neutrality discussions very often is the impact of the effects people wish to impose. I can't help but see a "pay more to get better access" model swiftly tilting to serve the needs of those who pay more - businesses and wealthy private citizens.NY Times wrote:WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
The F.C.C.'s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service.
The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.
That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.
Proponents of net neutrality have feared that such a framework would empower large, wealthy companies and prevent small start-ups, which might otherwise be the next Twitter or Facebook, for example, from gaining any traction in the market.
The F.C.C. plans were first reported online Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.
The new proposals, drafted by the F.C.C.'s chairman, Tom Wheeler, and his staff, will be circulated to the other four commissioners beginning Thursday, an F.C.C. spokeswoman said. The details can be amended by consensus in order to attract support from a majority of the commissioners. The commission will then vote on a final proposal at its May 15 meeting.
Call me an idealist, but the very thing the Internet does more and better than any other invention in human history is create a level playing field for discussion of ideas. Sure, there's a plethora of cat pictures, but it has helped people attach names, faces, and histories with other people they might have never met without it - particularly those in other countries. The Internet shrinks the world to the point where as long as you share a common language, you can communicate beyond physical barriers of country, community, or distance. The Skype calls I've been in that have literally had people across the world at the same time is my personal anecdotal evidence for this, and I highly doubt I'm the only one with that experience.
I can't help but see this level of "tiered" access by service providers as a way of imposing money and even class-based limits on this. No longer will the only requirement be that you have an Internet connection. If this goes through, anything you use and visit on the Internet will have had to also pay enough money to ISP's to allow the traffic through in a timely manner, something which is quite different than simply paying for Internet access.
I see this as great news for the rich, who can now pay more money to ensure that people hear their opinions on the Internet more than someone who didn't have as much money. I don't see this as great news for anyone who has even lived paycheck to paycheck for a short time.