What does Net Neutrality mean to us internet users? And how might it affect the cost of goods and services for everyone? I'll start with my prediction about what will happen should Net Neutrality FAIL.
1. Big Telecoms immediately divide the internet into high-speed and low-speed access. This division is not based on technological or resource constraints, it will be intentional blockages created by the Telecoms for the sole purpose of extorting money from websites who wish to have faster access.
2. All large websites will pay the additional fees. Quite simply, without high-speed access they can not compete, so they must, and will, pay.
3. These websites will directly or indirectly pass on this new business expense to the consumer. Directly, sites which sell goods, services, subscriptions (e.g. Amazon) will raise prices. Indirectly, sites that primarily sell advertising (e.g. google, yahoo, cnn, etc) will raise those ad rates, which in turn will force the advertisers to raise the cost of their products.
The end result is that Telecoms will be making record profits at the expense of consumers. Sounds familiar - big oil anyone?
What about the websites that don't pay?
They won't be cut off, but you'll be forced to view them using the low-speed access. Does anyone recall Dial-up? Do the numbers 14.4 and 28.8 mean anything to you? Honestly, I don't exactly what speeds you'll be able to access these other sites, but it sure won't be at the same high speeds you do today.
Think about this - would you pay to read RaisingKaine? And NotLarrySabato? And CommonwealthConservative? And all the others regardless of political position? The loss of Net Neutrality would be a huge blow to the Virginia political blogs and the national blogging community in general. These sites/blogs would either have to pay (and therefore ask readers for a subscription fee) or would be slowed to a crawl (and therefore lose readers due to snail like performance).
This thing is bad news for just about everyone. As far as I can tell, the only ones who benefit from no Net Neutrality are the Big Telecoms, their stockholders, and politicians who receive generous donations from the Telecoms. The rest of us will pay more for our products (with absolutely no value added) and we will suffer with unnecessarily slow web sites.
In case you haven't guessed or followed it, George Allen is AGAINST Net Neutrality. Yes, that's right, he would very much like give the Big Telecoms the right to interfere with everyone's internet experience for their own gain. Hmmm, I wonder why Allen would take such a stance? Anyway, Jim Webb is very much FOR Net Neutrality. Glad to see one of the Senate candidates is looking out for the people of Virginia.
Here's my big question: Where's the outrage? Yes, this issue is being publicized and has been brought up in the MSM and on blogs (a number of times on RK). But, given that the failure of Net Neutrality is, pure and simple, a vehicle that will take money out of our pockets and put in directly into the pockets of Big Telecoms, I thought there would be much more outrage. There are very few comments here on RK for posts on this subject. There aren't that many posts on other blogs. It isn't a big thing in the MSM. What gives?
A few reasons for this relative silence I can think of:
* People aren't familiar with it
* People don't believe it will have a negative effect
* People ARE outraged, just being quiet about it
* People think the Big Telecoms are right and deserve to profit as much as anyone else
So, what are your thoughts on this matter? Is this a real issue or scare tactics? Why do you think there isn't more outrage and publicity? Please sound off - silence may very well be costly to all of us on this one.
The multinational telecommunications big guys want to eliminate "net neutrality" because they don't believe in competition or free trade. They are the antithesis of competition....
I'm not a businees owner but I will be denied the freedoms including freedom of choice that I currently enjoy on the internet.
The internet creators instilled net neutrality on the webb...it's been a guiding principle. The telecoms want to ELMINATE net nutrality so they can OWN the internet itself...shich is currently a public resource (much like our airwaves are...and are soon t be "not")....
Unfortunately politicians like Senator Allen can be bought. That's why he voted against Net Neutrality even though his constituents (from the Christian Coalition on the right to MoveOn.org on the left) pleaded with him to support Net Neutrality. Allen did not even have the decency to "reveal" how he was going to vote. So this issue can bring out the worst in our politicians.
But it bought out the best in Rep. Jim Moran (D) who has worked long and hard to preserve Net Neutrality a guiding principle of the worldwide webb.
It's outrageous that the inventors of the webb, created the concept of Net Neutrality, and the greedy telecommunications industry now wants to OWN AND CONTROL the webb and eliminate the incredible innovations that others invented....
I am so outraged!
I'd really love to hear from some of our conservative friends - those Allen supporters out there. Do y'all support the loss of Net Neutrality - as Allen has voted? Is there some greater good Republicans see in this thing that everyone else is just missing?
And again, where is the mass outrage from everyone else? The loss of Net Neutrality WILL seriously change the internet. Do people really not care?
I'm amazed at the perceived lack of interest, given how everyone relies so heavily on the internet. Are we just content to let a few large corporations have their way - and we'll accept whatever structure they determine is best? I don't know about you, but this one works fine for me.
If the government was doing this it'd be considered a tax. And censorship. And favoritism.