This REALLY pisses me off…

2 Comments

1. I’m not really sure what is at stake here. Would voting FOR the amendment have meant that they COULD charge a different price for bandwidth? That’s what I got out of it…

   Reply

2. Nope. Basically voting FOR this proposal would limit network providers from charging both subscribers AND content providers for the use of their networks … twice actually, for content providers.

   Example: Right now, you pay Verizon DSL a monthly charge for Internet access, and Google pays whatever major backbones they connect with an access fee as well, which is fine. But now all of the major telecos are getting greedy and complaining about companies like Google using their network “without paying for it,” so in that perspective, Verizon thinks that they should be able to bill Google for usage, too.

   And the flip side of it right now is that they’re saying, “If we can’t charge extra for your usage, then we’re just going to prioritize as we please” – i.e. a video that you want to download from Google Video might not download as fast as one from Verizon’s website because they’re deprioritizing anything that isn’t theirs. This could be devastating for VOIP because some carriers want to block access altogether to force you to continue to buy their phone services.

   It’s corporate greed at one of its worsts and what really pissed me off about that article was that the telephone companies are all spending HUGE amounts of cash buying politicians off in Washington to vote in their favor, whereas at this point they’re worth only a fraction of companies like Google and Microsoft these days. They’re mad because they’re no longer the big fish in the pond and it’s always easier to swindle and cheat your way back to the surface than come up with some new ideas…

   Reply