Internet has always been a source of confusion and anxiety on Capitol Hill. It was also one of the most glamorous issues among legislators, because the impact it has had on the way to communicate to Americans, looking for fun and do business.
As the speed of the Internet has grown, as his "band" has allowed us to bring large amounts of content at high speed, the Internet has become a highway road enormously profitable business. It has become too much like a utility, because its services are mainly provided by cable operators and telephone companies, every industry operating in most markets de facto monopoly.
Now, as cable and telephone companies that are Internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for services additional revenue beyond the subscription fee you charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major web content providers a fee for the massive use of their networks. Big sites like Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put on the web
gas pipelines.
Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their Internet connections through various data centers and connections to other backbone networks. Some do not do much to dispel the confusion they can cause requests, allowing people to somehow think Google is paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do not pay, the central theme of this debate is whether they will pay more because of their size, or treatment far from equal when an ISP customers trying to reach their sites.
Net neutrality comes to Center Stage
What brought this issue to a head is the capacity in anticipation of broadband cable networks to offer first run movies and other video programming on the Internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their model of advertising revenue and Amazon with its huge retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of these companies have revenue from the services and transactions completed on their networks - without any cost.
So "net neutrality" has become a watchword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one piece of proposed legislation in the last eighteen months. One problem with the legislators is that nobody is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For large content providers, means that any extra for their presence and availability on the Internet. For ISPs, is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more precisely, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Cable Regulation has fought for years, and sees net neutrality as another threat to the government. Says a spokesman: "For example, net neutrality means that network operators can not block spam? Should be allowed network operators to stop the spread of viruses? Should large users of peer-to-peer to unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower? "
The main search engines and Internet retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and are joined by some allies, including freedom of speech supporters of likely Internet, organizations like MoveOn and liberal Such some libertarian organizations.
The concern is that the legislative monopoly service providers would be able to give some websites than others - and provide unlimited high speed for the ability to deliver more sites will encourage other Web sites in Internet slow-lane highway. There is also the possibility of denying some websites ISPs access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are seen as an entity model inherently unjust antitrust review, at least some Democrats.
Google has recently threatened to use the antitrust cases of net neutrality initiatives should not detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.
Freedom of speech or freedom of profit?
Philosophical questions are interesting. But most important of this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. Telephone companies that have a large number of high-speed Internet subscribers intention to enter the television business over the Internet.
Yahoo and Google are prospects for online video sites and alliances between these companies and film are a real possibility. The cable companies providing Internet services are also interested in private pay-per-view services delivered via the Internet. Service providers like to see a property "on several levels in which you can load large websites (with large revenue streams), a fee. Also, would like to join in
business content.
Providers argue that the additional revenue is necessary to allow them to continue to invest billions in high-speed networks to better serve their customers. It is found allies among some hardware manufacturers who see the implementation of the fee structure as online require additional equipment in-house. Some conservative Republicans are against net neutrality, and agreeing that ISPs would be denied the opportunity to expand their networks without additional revenue.
A regulatory conundrum
The FCC has left the problem alone. At some point, have dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major providers of web content, saying that the regulation was necessary for activities that still HAD to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina blocked internet services on their mobile telephone network that they used to provide both Internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer able to ignore the issue, as will the department enforcement matter emerge from the debate
A bill to address net neutrality, which was proposed by the Democrats failed in Parliament in April. However attitudes are moving. In May, a bipartisan bill apparently left the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language of the existing antitrust laws guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make illegal under antitrust law for network operators to levy taxes or fail to provide their services to "reasonable and non discriminatory."
In addition, the bill bars ISPs from blocking or compromising websites. The house has two other pending bills, as well, both from Democrats. One proposal is deputy Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. It is proposed to amend a bill scheduled for consideration of telecommunications by both houses by the end of the year.
On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the ongoing debate on this issue made its way to the process. Currently, the bill includes language that charges the FCC to look for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" fits the approach of the NCTA. It is an approach to good governance to continue non-regulation, and as the president said NCTA a Senate committee, "This is the kind of problem that is more appropriate to study more."
No comments:
Post a Comment