"While the definition of net neutrality is open to some debate, at the core is the commitment to ensuring that Internet service providers treat all content and applications equally with no privileges, degrading of service or prioritization based on the content's source, ownership or destination."
Now this idea was built into the very fiber of the internet, because computer companies in the early days only built computers that talked to other computers you bought from them. The US Military needed to get computers from different companies to talk to one another; so being vendor neutral was part of the net's original mission.
However over he last 20 years the net has come more and more under the control of a few telecommunications giants. No big deal right? Just let the market take care of the net, it will be fine.
Well take a look at the cell phone market in North America, run by many of the same companies, only they go to build it their way. Consider that it's common for a cell phone company to disable simple features on phones so that customers need to use expensive options from the company. Many phones have their ability to transfer a picture directly to a PC disabled, so that you need to pay data charges to send a picture from your phone to a PC. Or phones that can play MP3 ringtones, but only if you buy the ring tone from the company. Want a rare Canadian song as your ringtone? Too bad your MP3 needs a special embedded code to play as a ring tone on the latest phones. Or UMA phones that will let you make a call via WiFi, cause they still make money on that, but don't let you get data via WiFi cause there's no money in that.
When Bell, Rogers or Telus say that we don't need Net Neutrality protection, consider how they have managed the network they built from scratch. They've managed it against the best interests of their customers. We shouldn't let them do the same thing with the net.
- Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment