I believe the bill was passed about net neutrality not being recognized? I’ve been following this for a while and the idea of blocking some sites just flipped me off.
Sorry for the shady details. Any one with better details?
Old people like me can remember when they sold the taxpayer cable TV. They called it “pay TV”, which meant there would be no commercials. We all can see how that story turned out. The same thing is going to happen to the internet and there is nothing we can do about it. What are we going to do, go on strike by not using our computers?
Irony here is that without equal access many of the big for profit sites would never have made it, i.e. google, yahoo, amazon, ebay, etc. An open net makes for a strong climate for both profit and not-for-profit enterprises.
How about some meaningful legislation (and enforcement) to deal with the jerks that are spamming, phishing, and infecting our computers with spyware and viruses? They are a huge threat to our privacy, and cost millions, if not billions of dollars in support costs.
Congress needs to focus on creating a better web climate for all of us rather than placing corporate limits on this great communications revolution.
Nice piece, but the matter was resolved last week in favor of the ISP’s.
Lest you feel bad about not lobbying your congress person, it really doesn’t matter. You have no voice in Washington unless you making large contributions. Whether Republican or Democrat the only access is through $$$$$.
Right on that one. I live in Massachusetts. Our Congressman lives and breaths on donations. It seems like that is his job. Getting moola. He is so far down the totem pole that even he knows that he doesn’t matter, so why not take the money and just be another Dem rubber stamp from MA like all the rest from around here. Does he care? Nah, probably doesn’t even know how to use the internet. But he does know how to use those campaign contributions to be wagged like a puppy’s tail. That is too bad. I’ll send him a note but it won’t have any money attached. Probably will throw it in his circular file.
Excellent summation by ‘Manda. And it is always nice to see the uber-vehicle making a cameo.
much better. more like the RB I look forwards to viewing (of course, if Net Neutrality fails, I may be forced to view an RB alternative like ‘RocketPfft’.)
For all those of you commenting thinking that US law won’t affect you because you’re not American… think again. Sure you’ll still have access to BBC, but will you still be able to watch Rocketboom and other American sites that you enjoy? Possibly not.
Pressure all the American friends you have to take action and sign petitions… that’s the only thing we can do while we watch from the other side of the border.
Amanda,
I’m a “Telco” manager and an avid Rocketboom viewer. I would agree that the internet should be a place of equal opportunity for all. But the resources and investment that the internet service providers need to pay for are not free. The problem is that in order to continue to provide this “Free” universe we have all become accustomed to having, and to continue to provide fast, and faster access as more and more content comes on line, the “Telcos” spend large amounts of money to try to keep pace with the ever-growing traffic. If we did not do so, internet service would slow down drastically for everyone. I think it is essential that we continue to invest in the network infrastructure that make the internet a reality. OK then, so how should this be paid for? We could just ask the government to mandate that those big deep pockets “Telcos” have to pay for it even if the return on the investment is zero. right! I’m sorry, but while I agree with keeping the internet open and equal, I really would like to continue to be able to have a job and pay the bills. My compnay has continued to become more efficient, doing more with less, just like any other firm needs to do. There does appear to be a need to control and manage the growth of the internet, in the same way that laws get made to control traffic on the roads and interstate highway system. But when was the last time you think someting was improved by getting government involved. More bureacracy and regulation has not been an answer as far as I’m concerned. Instead, the free-market response to regulation of the internet would be to require those who consume more to pay more. How about establishing a government- mandated fund which would require everyone to pay in the same amount so that the end result would be that the peiople who use less would still be screwed because their payment would be subsidising the use of others who use lots lots more. That wouldn’t work either. I really believe that letting economics and the free market system decide how to allocate scarce resources is the way to go. I’m sorry that none of us like to pay for something we don’t presently have to pay for. But I don’t think that screwing the “Telco’s” is tha answer either. OK so that’s my two cents. Now having said that, I’d like to commend your taking a stand in support of your interests. I am and will continue to be a regular participant in the Rocketboom phenomenon. Absolutely best wishes to you, Amanda and Co-producers, great job!
Hi, my name is Marco, I live in Italy, I just wanted to say that the whole issue of internet neutrality is NOT just USA business; what’s happening now in the USA will affect the rest of the world! In Italy we have a sad media situation wich give politics and businessmen too much power (and you understand the consequences). Most of the people don’t realize how bad this is, it’s about freedom. Internet gives hope for better future in USA, Italy and the rest of the world. Information is power, at the moment Internet gives voice to everybody and people are understanding that lot of information that go on tv and newspaper is just bullshit. Lots of people want alternative and more reliable sources and and freedom of choice, internet is the only medium that can offer this. If politics (or anyone else) manage to control the internet, well, that’s too bad for all of us. If they restrict internet access and usage in the USA this model will be imitated in all other countries. The problem is that most of the people don’t see such a threat, and it’s very difficult for the ones who understand to discuss this subject. Am I too pessimistic? I don’t think so, it’s a very important issue which involves lots of consequences.
I am mystified by your assertion that internet users get this service for free. I pay $57.90 per month to get this service (including their infrastructure) from Comcast, and every other user, whether cable or DSL, does too. How can you whine about “free” service?
Not being American, I would also like to get more of the international perspective. Pretty please?
Ken, if providers start crippling the internet experience of their paying customers the free market will produce providers that can boldly advertise their service as not being crippled. But how sad is that, advertising something in the line of “join us, our product is not broken”? Pretty sad if you ask me. Now if the companies controlling the true real life infrastructure (which does not have to be identical to the internet provider, at least not where I live. But then I live in a country where mobile carriers would be staked and burned if they told people which phones they can use on their network. The US look pretty backwards at times) starts controlling & crippling whatever is happening on their lines we are moving towards abuse of a monopoly position. And that is a bad, bad word.
Bad Beaver,
It’s not anyones’ intent to intrude into the free exchange of ideas that the internet allows. I’m entirely in favor of free expression, it’s the backbone (no pun intended) of the Constitution of the United States. What is at issue is the same thing that comes into play in any situation where demand begins to outpace supply. Someone needs to invest heavily to maintain and improve. No, we do all pay for internet access. And if the marketplace is the regulatory jurisdiction of choice, then more competition is good, more providers, more investors, and more choices. We need to support an environment which encourages more competition, which means supporting an environment that is not incumbered with governemtal regulatory restrictions.
Great episode, and some very insightful comments as well.
I ignored the discussion far too long myself thinking “feh, that’s just an American thing.” But you are all so right, this will affect the rest of the world too. What I find difficult to swallow is that I will have no say in the outcome. Argggh.
I find it very interesting that Google is arguing for net neutrality, as they are one of the big companies. Good to know.
Tim, Ken’s argument is that telcos need a lot of money in order to keep service up to standard, and even more money in order to expand it (One should think that they should get along with what they make). IIUC he also does not like the idea of governmental regulation in regard to how telcos make said money. While I think that nobody really wants any governmental regulation in regard to content (with few exceptions) or general access, I think there should be regulation regarding the specific crippling of access. It’s the wrong direction.
More left-wing crap from Amanda delivered from her stick-shift foreign automobile! Why…
Oops. Sorry I was channeling an off-her-meds Shannon for a minute there, living in the delusion that Amanda is the pretty Ann Coulter.
Ugh. That world is a scary place to be. Even for a minute.
Good thing you didn’t show the “Feeling Scared? Buy another gun” bumper sticker on Amanda’s Volvo. (Just kidding, you wacko wing-nuts who hang out here just to complain what a radical Amanda is)
Telcos are currently making plenty of money from consumers and content providers who pay for internet acess. Telcos have already proven they can and do make extrodinarily large investment in the internet infrastructure with under the current pay structure. Content providers and us “the consumers” already pay for internet access. The difference is that now telecos want to charge content providers for access to consumers.
There’s this really great site I know thats already barely hanging in there by a thread. This would crush them! Don’t squash the lil guy! Man, the rich just keep gettin richer and the rest of us are just screwed.
Excellent, Amanda and Drew.
Great commentary on an improtant issue. I don’t know if everyone realizes the implications> As a rural ISP I can tell you that this issue will become huge as the telco cable wars continue. Thanks from the “little guy”. Keep it up!
I just want to say Amanda, you totally gave me goosebumps at the end of todays episode. I think a lot of people would not know anything is happening at all until they could no longer access the sites they want and it would be too late.
A main outcome of pay-for-access will be fragmentation. As in, when TV in the UK moved into Sky etc, the standard of content on terrestial TV dropped dramatically, as they didnt have the money to pay for higher profile content. The outcome of this was that the market for certain programmes shrank to near zero. Conversely, stars and sportsmen, for example, were no longer household names, as they were no longer seen on terrestial TV, only on the pay-per-view satellite channels (which could pay them much higher fees), but which still have lower take up than was ever anticipated.
The current situation on UK TV for music is a prime example - there isnt any real coverage of music at all on terrestial TV, and this is reflected in national low sales and shrinking markets.
The effect on the internet will be the same. Fragmentation, by cost, or other means, is always bad news for the market, as awareness of ’stuf’ is paramount to market forces. Market forces can’t exist if most people don’t know about the product.
What happens in the USA will effect the entire world-wide internet. The USA ‘owns’ the internet. Without their infrastructure, it would cease to exist, certainly in it’s present form.
We all pay for access, but at present don’t pay for content or functions. With the spouted idea of pay-email, another tier is raising its head.
A two tier internet will probably be inevitable. After all, we already have that, as most people in most countries only have dial up access and bad computers.
And what about Rocketboom paying large amounts of $$$ for their sparkly new servers? They pay for us to view their content.
We need a better model to ensure that all can view anything, but money can be charged, in a meaningful and fair way. What about personal/commercial licences for access?
Needed cheering up as Togo couldn’t come up with the goods vs les Bleues…
I’m with “S” as I’m the the UK too.
Also totally agree with Deano and the BMan.
Have a great weekend.
And, for what it’s worth I think you guys were robbed vs Italy this week. 2 red cards? V. bad decision. At least you played with more spirit than Beckham et al.
Hmmmm … interesting digression from the norm. A serious political stand … delivered with vigor and conviction.
Has Amanda morphed into the Edward G. Murrow of the Web?
When that intelligence and passion blaze from that beautiful face … wow.
More importantly … Net Neutrality must never be compromised. The history of mankind is the weaker and smaller being quashed by the power elite. The Net changed all of that. That’s why a cute , bright gal from from the grass roots could become a media personality and cover what she wants to cover.
The Net is THE force for change in the world today … no one can get away with too much for too long … as long as people can talk, freely. Across borders.
I hope and pray the Net stays out of the kind of control Amanda described.
Loved the segment. Although, I don’t believe strict net neutrality regulations will pass through Congress. The recent amendment (in some form) containing the so-called “Internet Bill of Rights” submitted by Sen. Ted Stevens is probably about as stringent as it will get.
Your scare tactics will raise the ire of a very vocal community, but your basic premise is incorrect: that the evil Internet access providers need to be prevented from managing the traffic on their network because they may potentially degrade or block service. Using this logic I would assume that you agree with Bush to go to war against Iraq because they have WMD. Now that WMD have actually been found you could make your point. In any case, the FCC has been effective in policing any abuses so why do we need additional vague and potentially harmful legislation. The truth is that most net neutrality legislation will potentially stifle innovation on the Internet because it will make utilization of traffic shaping tools illegal. These tools are mechanisms that Netflix, Google video, Vonage and many other Internet application providers can utilize to guarantee a consistent and quality user experience. Throwing more bandwidth at the problem is not the answer because there are other choke points in the network. Be careful advocating policy over the Internet because it may actually hurt instead of helping. I for one would pay an extra $5 per month to cable and telephone companies to give me the ability to increase the priority of my VoIP and streaming video traffic as it moves through the network.
True that the RBOC and cable companies will make money from implementing this service, but they know that they cannot discriminate towards their own IPTV and VoIP services. That is why they announced offering it to other Internet application providers. The problem is that they were less than smooth articulating their plans to customers. RBOC executives are not known for their ability to communicate well. This capability is being offered in Europe and Asia and no one is complaining there. Search Technorati for blogs on net neutrality and RBOC. You will find a couple of blogs providing an unbiased analysis.
It’s the end of the internet as we have known it. I don’t think there is any stopping it now. I’m Irish so I had no say in what happened in the American decision. But you know what, needier did any of you US citizens. The Republicans are on the side of the telecom companies and hold the majority, no amount of lobbying was going to change that. We are supposed to live in free societies where governments reflect the will of the people, the majority of people do not want an end to net neutrality, yet it happened anyway. It seems all we do in a democracy is choose the rice old men who rule us.
I am a UK watcher of RocketBoom but I feel strongly about Net Neutrality. If this doesn’t happen then its big business and the government collaborating to make more cash. It’s totally corrupt, dishonest and even if it is not illegal in the law it should be. Everyone can tell right from wrong.
Guys… drop the craigslist thing. You were fine until then. Craigslist had their window size set to 0 which triggered a bug in software that is distributed to all cox customers. Craigslist could have fixed this at any time. One server setting for them, vs trying to get every cox customer to update their software. (Which has been fixed by the way).
Both were at fault, but Craigslist could have fixed theirs in about 5 minutes had they chosen to do so. What’s worse is that people keep trumpeting them around.
Now… The point is valid that a cox type entity could certainly intentionally do this type of thing to a craigslist type of company. But that ISN’T what happened here. I have no problem with that being presented as a what could happen, but it keeps getting put up as a fact of what did happen and that’s not true.
Ok, Amanda. I for one will not kiss up to you and pretend that you gave some prize-winning presentation reguarding this issue. You, and too many people on this site, seem to think that the internet is some sort of God-given right. Earth to Rocketboom: You are using PRIVATE companies to access the internet. Where to you get off demanding that the government control what these private companies can and cannot do with their services? If you dont like the way they do business, GET ANOTHER ISP! Seriously, you all are sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats.
The intrnet has NEVER been a public entity, someone has to make money in order for this thing to survive. That may not compute in the tra-la-la world of Rocketboom, but most people with a basic understanding of economics could figure this one out.
Does it suck? Yes! But who ever said life was fair.
btw. Can Rocketboom become political neutral? I think I’ll work a bill through congress to force you to do that.
Oh that amanda is so wacky. I love to hear crazy consperices! I give credit at least she did not try to blame george bush for all of what she was talking about. Remember kids!! Liberalism is a metal disorder..
yah i think you owe to everyone to be politically neutral. you should try presenting things without your personal opinion involved so much. you want to be a great new online news service but you are just as good as CNN or worse. Try being more like fox news unbiased. As a forerunner in video blogging rocketboom neutrality is a must!
Great report. Mr. Telcoman I pay so I don’t from FREE.
Aren’t the laws that govern the phone companies (common carrier) different from those of tv and broadcast (public interest). The common carrier laws are more for public service entities, where the broadcast and cable laws cover areas like foreign ownership, cross media ownership, and egad! FREE SPEECH. The internet can be impacted by common carrier laws (government), or protected under free speech and the first amendment (the bill of rights and the U.S. Constitution). Seems to me that the internet can spread Democracy faster than a utility. Get off the grid, get on the internet and be free. Comments?
In the usual business structure, a source, Nike say, creates something, a distributer, Sears say, buys it from them, and makes it available to its customers who reimburse Sears for the item and all the distribution costs.
In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.
If Sears, Wall Mart, and other major distributors baned together and told a source that it would have to pay for having them as its distributors, they would be engaging in extortion, and would be subject to severe penalties since this is a criminal offense.
However, when Verison, AT+T, and other major Internet distributors ban together and request that their, free, sources have to pay for having them as distributors, people actually take them seriously!
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
“In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.”
Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you. If Google was putting a greater strain on that infastructure to the point where Verizon had to pay money in order to expand their network in order to accomodate Google, then Google has recived a free boost. Google recives billions in on-line revenue, while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
How is that fair? Oh yeah, the internet is a “right” so say the braintrust at Rocketboom.
Kevin Rose writes: Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you.
Verizon’s customers are paying for it. As a customer you pay a monthly fee for fixed bandwidth, which you can use as you like. Google’s content costs Verizon no more to carry over their customer’s wires than any other content.
while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.
“Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.”
How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you? Many of these companies may be eating much of the cost so they dont have to pass it on to the end user, which will lead to a loss of customers if the bill gets too high?
“They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well”
Why not? Google’s content goes through their pipes just like your request for it.
Kevin, if the money that the customers of Verizon pay is not enough, then Verizon should put up their prices rather than adopt this retarded get-money-from-both-sides scheme.
This is too important an issue to just brush away. Although Net Neutrality might not neccessarily mean the same thing as Fair and Equal Access, these are two concepts (by virtue of my profession) I must support. I suggest that in future episodes of RB, you deliver a summary of reactions to this piece.
What a trove of insight into both the information and the misinformation swirling around in this potentially emotional issue.
I still can’t grasp how maintaining access to craigslist (threatened for whatever reason) would be helpful to the tsunami victims — or was that the joke?
Better than the road analogy, Manhattan bridges and tunnels would be a better one — the Brooklyn bridge is free but it can take a while sometimes. The Battery Tunnel is a good alternate and sometimes worth a little money when you’re in a hurry.
Neither option, by the way, has any effect on the cost of real estate on Manhattan island - just as any potential net neutrality regs will not have any real effect on the costs passed around by the backbone providers.
Kevin Rose writes: How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you?
Because they set the prices themselves. I have contracted with Verizon to provide me with a certain fixed bandwidth. They have promised me that I will get that bandwith with a reasonable degree of reliability for a price which they themselves have set.
If they can’t do it, they should charge correct prices. Trust me, they are not running at a loss — lacking any serious competition, telcos do not provide any service at a loss. Even they don’t claim that it costs them more to carry Google to a customer than the customer is paying. Instead they lie and say that “Google is using their pipes for free.” This is false. I am using their pipes, using the 1.5Mb/sec inbound bandwidth which I am paying for. Google pays millions for bandwidth at their end. That should be the end of it.
Kevin, if you don’t think Verizon or whoever is making enough money, why don’t you write them a personal check for whatever you think they need? I’m already paying the price they set for the service I use — inbound and outbound. They neither need to know nor care who I’m connecting to because I’m paying for both directions. And so, by the way, is Google, to their providers.
“These are companies who are generating massive profits as it is”
And thats what this boils down to. A bunch of socialist who want the federal government to take control of private business because the pricing structure is not cool with them. And the fact that you try to wrap it around the banner of “the government is just protecting me” BS is just sad. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING YOU FROM SICKNESS! We are talking about you not being able to download boatloads of videos and music without having to pay more.
Welcome to a free market! If you dont want to play their way, THEN DONT USE THE D@MN SERVICE. Have no other choice? Take it up with your local government and open up some choices in your city.
Seriously, some of you seem to be thinking like children on this issue. The “telecos” are not a charity. They are in the business to make money, just like *GASP* the people at Rocketboom! I dont like the idea of what they want to do, but Im sure as hell not going support socialist style bill through congress in order to see that changed.
This is one of the worst assessments of Net Neutrality I’ve seen. Net Neutrality is not about making users select one ads-free classified site over another, its not about what is in consumers’ best interests. It is about two seperate sets of very powerful corporations that started in seemingly unrelated industries, but now find themselves in direct competition with one another.
It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies. Film, Video, and TV show distribution, and advertising, are all becoming less profitable for cable companies, as are telephone calls for telcos due to VoIP, iTunes Music/Video Store, Google Video/AdSense, etc…
Of course RocketBoom releases something like this; They take the side of the web services company and of course would not want to pay additional bandwidth fees. This has nothing to do with the little guy because the little guy wouldn’t be effected by this until he was a player in the game, and once he was a player, he can afford it. Exclusive marketing alliances are also not as much of a concern, because theyre not in any company’s best interest; if one competitor works with one company, and another with another, then they both limit their power and scope. All the cable and telcos want is fair compensation for the vast amounts of bandwidth some companies use these days.
It is so cushy to be a website like these days. Simply, net based businesses need to get used to another line item in their budget and a slight decrease in their absurd ad revenue related profitability.
If you want to bitch about monopolistic practices, why not blog about the electricity service providers. You’ve not got much choice when it comes to which one to choose, right? Well, that’s fair. After all, they put the wires in. Hmmm so did the telco, though. But then you are not trying to make money off the back of the electricity provider, are you! Telco’s don’t want to restrict service, they want to charge to provide a premium service. BIG difference. But you know that, don’t you. And, btw, from out here in suburbia USA, I’ve got at least 4 choices for internet access. Even the most rural areas are getting 2 choices these days – cable or DSL.
Newsflash! Anyone who already deals with ordering data lines knows that the internet is already tiered! Blocking is definitely crap, but throttling is already business as usual for years. Too late!
Wow. There are a lot of industry shills commenting here now. For example, “Modern Demagogue” writes: It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies.
BZZZZT! Wrong. Tell whoever paid you to post that to give you material that fits the facts next time. The content companies do pay for bandwidth; they pay millions in fees to get their stuff on the internet. And they don’t use the last-mile bandwidth to the home without paying, because it’s already being paid for by the customers. When I download video from YouTube, I am using bandwidth that I have paid for. My contract says 768kbps up and 1500kbps down. The telcos are being compensated in the amount they are entitled to and at the rate agreed upon.
The problem is not that they aren’t being compensated (they are), the problem is they want a piece of everybody else’s action: give us money or we’ll prevent your customers from getting to your site. Even though the customer are paying already the full, agreed price for the bandwidth used.
Harry Stottle, I doubt that the ISPs will have many qualms about operating on a whitelist-based scheme, moreover, on IP addresses. Are you honestly telling me that the anonymizer proxy you connect to will be able to afford these fees, and, even if they could, I doubt the ISP would take them, as all it would do is facilitate the anonymizer service punching a hole in their revenue scheme.
The proposal would impose higher costs on sites that account for a lot of bandwidth e.g. popular vlog sites. Regardless of the economics or fairness of the proposal, that is why RB is against it.
Ok, she was wrong about the Cox/Craigslist thing. Give her a break. She has a daily fricking vlog to do and I for one hope this stupid issue does not lower her head. (Is that a take? Thanks, guys. Crazy nutjob if I ever saw one, but watta doll!)
WOW! At lest in in the United Kingdom we have not looked at the internet as a way of a social/ economic intrument. Granted we have one telecom company running the infra strsucture, buut this has arised from a privatised government department, formaly the GPO and therefore access is/ was all inclusive.However, like everything over this side of the pond with the current politcal climate we will probally follow like sheep saying is it si ‘American’ and therefore ‘cool’. So we British must not get complacient. Great site thought provoking ideas
Thanks Amanda and crew, its not just her you know!
The telcos claim that net neutrality would prevent them from making enough money to keep upgrading their infrastructure. Um. Not quite.
The thing that is keeping them from upgrading their services to meet demand is the way they price net access - typically a flat monthly fee. This is popular with the consumer, but that is the real problem the telcos are facing.
The people who use more bandwidth should pay for it. That way there is always an incentive to the telco to invest in infrastructure, and the burden of cost is distributed fairly.
In the video, Amanda seemed to be concerned for the little guy trying to run a website. But what about the other little guy - e.g. my parents - who don’t know what bittorrent is, and just browse a few web pages and send emails - but they pay the same as someone who spends all day and all night downloading movies. Does that seem fair to you?
All I’m saying is, if people were willing to pay for their net usage, the telcos wouldn’t be forced in this situation.
this is totally sensationalist. No ISP is going to block you from using craigslist ever, that’s totally ridiculous. More likely what they will do is offer improved behind the scenes traffic to certain types of traffic and decreased behind the scenes traffic to other types. For example they might make Google pay more, but big whoop, they have billions in profit. You won’t notice the difference.
Look what THEY did to the electric car.
You see THEY put out a hummer to guzzle more gasoline and people are so stupid, they bought into it. The virtual highway is no different than the concrete highway. IF they can they will.
GUAGE. GUAGE. GUAGE.
And they will, because they can. Because hummer brains exist everywhere.
I’m calling Daryl Hannah right now. Together up in some tree, we’ll figure out a way for James Birkett’s parents to get free net access. They don’t deserve to get gauged. gauged. gauged…
Seriously you guys, good job, thanks so much for doing this video! We are trying to make as many people as we can aware of this too. Keep it up over there,
Arin & Susan
what’s sad is that these so-called telcos are acting like a bunch of pathetic idiots about this whole net neutrality thing. do they REALLY need more money? NO, they do not. why the HELL do they have to go and mess up a good thing then? as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Enjoyed the content of this piece Friday June 23, 2006. Democracy does need to be vigilant in a market economy. I would urge Rocketboom to keep bearing the yoke of this important issue. There was piece on the radio this morning that spoke to not so much to access and who allows it, but the haves and the have nots in a world (country) where access to information can enlighted a road out of poverty, and where the lack of this access can make ensnare folks in chronic poverty.
As a small-fry content developer, I do take issue with tiered proposals of access. However, whereas pleading with congress might bring about an enforced status quo, are there any other strategies for maintaining a free and open internet?
Aren’t we harming ourselves by relying on large corporations to supply our bandwidth… can we get around that somehow? Are there efforts being made in that direction? Let’s build our own bandwidth!
I agree with the other individual who says the craigslist issue just makes the argument weaker and more complicated. Let’s not be another spin doctor. Net Neutrality: a matter of life and death? Okay maybe like one in a five million chance. But the fact that it would affect everyone’s daily surfing habits makes for a much better argument and one that EVERYBODY can relate to.
AMANDA IS NOT ONLY BEAUTIFUL AND TALENTED BUT ALSO VERY SMART AND ARTICULATE. THIS IS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF NET NEUTRALITY I HAVE EVER SEEN. I’M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE I KNOW INCLUSING MY SEANTORS. WAY
uh, yeah. I agree with you, but feel that overly complicated examples about craigslist make for an impossibly weak argument.
I don’t have a Congressperson - I’m not American. Are your vlogs only for American audiences? I feel quilty for looking, now.
I believe the bill was passed about net neutrality not being recognized? I’ve been following this for a while and the idea of blocking some sites just flipped me off.
Sorry for the shady details. Any one with better details?
Wow!!! You guys got it right on this “commercial”. I wish you guys did this well on your other projects.
Great job.
Old people like me can remember when they sold the taxpayer cable TV. They called it “pay TV”, which meant there would be no commercials. We all can see how that story turned out. The same thing is going to happen to the internet and there is nothing we can do about it. What are we going to do, go on strike by not using our computers?
Irony here is that without equal access many of the big for profit sites would never have made it, i.e. google, yahoo, amazon, ebay, etc. An open net makes for a strong climate for both profit and not-for-profit enterprises.
How about some meaningful legislation (and enforcement) to deal with the jerks that are spamming, phishing, and infecting our computers with spyware and viruses? They are a huge threat to our privacy, and cost millions, if not billions of dollars in support costs.
Congress needs to focus on creating a better web climate for all of us rather than placing corporate limits on this great communications revolution.
Nice piece, but the matter was resolved last week in favor of the ISP’s.
Lest you feel bad about not lobbying your congress person, it really doesn’t matter. You have no voice in Washington unless you making large contributions. Whether Republican or Democrat the only access is through $$$$$.
Keep the net free?
My net is free, i’m in the UK. Your laws wont affect me.
Right on that one. I live in Massachusetts. Our Congressman lives and breaths on donations. It seems like that is his job. Getting moola. He is so far down the totem pole that even he knows that he doesn’t matter, so why not take the money and just be another Dem rubber stamp from MA like all the rest from around here. Does he care? Nah, probably doesn’t even know how to use the internet. But he does know how to use those campaign contributions to be wagged like a puppy’s tail. That is too bad. I’ll send him a note but it won’t have any money attached. Probably will throw it in his circular file.
Excellent summation by ‘Manda. And it is always nice to see the uber-vehicle making a cameo.
much better. more like the RB I look forwards to viewing (of course, if Net Neutrality fails, I may be forced to view an RB alternative like ‘RocketPfft’.)
Elegantly done. Bravo!
For all those of you commenting thinking that US law won’t affect you because you’re not American… think again. Sure you’ll still have access to BBC, but will you still be able to watch Rocketboom and other American sites that you enjoy? Possibly not.
Pressure all the American friends you have to take action and sign petitions… that’s the only thing we can do while we watch from the other side of the border.
Amanda,
I’m a “Telco” manager and an avid Rocketboom viewer. I would agree that the internet should be a place of equal opportunity for all. But the resources and investment that the internet service providers need to pay for are not free. The problem is that in order to continue to provide this “Free” universe we have all become accustomed to having, and to continue to provide fast, and faster access as more and more content comes on line, the “Telcos” spend large amounts of money to try to keep pace with the ever-growing traffic. If we did not do so, internet service would slow down drastically for everyone. I think it is essential that we continue to invest in the network infrastructure that make the internet a reality. OK then, so how should this be paid for? We could just ask the government to mandate that those big deep pockets “Telcos” have to pay for it even if the return on the investment is zero. right! I’m sorry, but while I agree with keeping the internet open and equal, I really would like to continue to be able to have a job and pay the bills. My compnay has continued to become more efficient, doing more with less, just like any other firm needs to do. There does appear to be a need to control and manage the growth of the internet, in the same way that laws get made to control traffic on the roads and interstate highway system. But when was the last time you think someting was improved by getting government involved. More bureacracy and regulation has not been an answer as far as I’m concerned. Instead, the free-market response to regulation of the internet would be to require those who consume more to pay more. How about establishing a government- mandated fund which would require everyone to pay in the same amount so that the end result would be that the peiople who use less would still be screwed because their payment would be subsidising the use of others who use lots lots more. That wouldn’t work either. I really believe that letting economics and the free market system decide how to allocate scarce resources is the way to go. I’m sorry that none of us like to pay for something we don’t presently have to pay for. But I don’t think that screwing the “Telco’s” is tha answer either. OK so that’s my two cents. Now having said that, I’d like to commend your taking a stand in support of your interests. I am and will continue to be a regular participant in the Rocketboom phenomenon. Absolutely best wishes to you, Amanda and Co-producers, great job!
Hi, my name is Marco, I live in Italy, I just wanted to say that the whole issue of internet neutrality is NOT just USA business; what’s happening now in the USA will affect the rest of the world! In Italy we have a sad media situation wich give politics and businessmen too much power (and you understand the consequences). Most of the people don’t realize how bad this is, it’s about freedom. Internet gives hope for better future in USA, Italy and the rest of the world. Information is power, at the moment Internet gives voice to everybody and people are understanding that lot of information that go on tv and newspaper is just bullshit. Lots of people want alternative and more reliable sources and and freedom of choice, internet is the only medium that can offer this. If politics (or anyone else) manage to control the internet, well, that’s too bad for all of us. If they restrict internet access and usage in the USA this model will be imitated in all other countries. The problem is that most of the people don’t see such a threat, and it’s very difficult for the ones who understand to discuss this subject. Am I too pessimistic? I don’t think so, it’s a very important issue which involves lots of consequences.
To Ken Kuziel:
I am mystified by your assertion that internet users get this service for free. I pay $57.90 per month to get this service (including their infrastructure) from Comcast, and every other user, whether cable or DSL, does too. How can you whine about “free” service?
Not being American, I would also like to get more of the international perspective. Pretty please?
Ken, if providers start crippling the internet experience of their paying customers the free market will produce providers that can boldly advertise their service as not being crippled. But how sad is that, advertising something in the line of “join us, our product is not broken”? Pretty sad if you ask me. Now if the companies controlling the true real life infrastructure (which does not have to be identical to the internet provider, at least not where I live. But then I live in a country where mobile carriers would be staked and burned if they told people which phones they can use on their network. The US look pretty backwards at times) starts controlling & crippling whatever is happening on their lines we are moving towards abuse of a monopoly position. And that is a bad, bad word.
Bad Beaver,
It’s not anyones’ intent to intrude into the free exchange of ideas that the internet allows. I’m entirely in favor of free expression, it’s the backbone (no pun intended) of the Constitution of the United States. What is at issue is the same thing that comes into play in any situation where demand begins to outpace supply. Someone needs to invest heavily to maintain and improve. No, we do all pay for internet access. And if the marketplace is the regulatory jurisdiction of choice, then more competition is good, more providers, more investors, and more choices. We need to support an environment which encourages more competition, which means supporting an environment that is not incumbered with governemtal regulatory restrictions.
Great episode, and some very insightful comments as well.
I ignored the discussion far too long myself thinking “feh, that’s just an American thing.” But you are all so right, this will affect the rest of the world too. What I find difficult to swallow is that I will have no say in the outcome. Argggh.
I find it very interesting that Google is arguing for net neutrality, as they are one of the big companies. Good to know.
Great job, Amanda and Drew!
Cheers,
connie
FUCK THE INTERNET.
EVERYBODY UNPLUG!
Tim, Ken’s argument is that telcos need a lot of money in order to keep service up to standard, and even more money in order to expand it (One should think that they should get along with what they make). IIUC he also does not like the idea of governmental regulation in regard to how telcos make said money. While I think that nobody really wants any governmental regulation in regard to content (with few exceptions) or general access, I think there should be regulation regarding the specific crippling of access. It’s the wrong direction.
Amanda is HOT!
More left-wing crap from Amanda delivered from her stick-shift foreign automobile! Why…
Oops. Sorry I was channeling an off-her-meds Shannon for a minute there, living in the delusion that Amanda is the pretty Ann Coulter.
Ugh. That world is a scary place to be. Even for a minute.
Good thing you didn’t show the “Feeling Scared? Buy another gun” bumper sticker on Amanda’s Volvo. (Just kidding, you wacko wing-nuts who hang out here just to complain what a radical Amanda is)
Great job as usual, Amanda.
Hey Ken (Mr Telco)
Telcos are currently making plenty of money from consumers and content providers who pay for internet acess. Telcos have already proven they can and do make extrodinarily large investment in the internet infrastructure with under the current pay structure. Content providers and us “the consumers” already pay for internet access. The difference is that now telecos want to charge content providers for access to consumers.
Hey Politicians,
Maybe you’ll wake up when the telcos limit access to your campaign website, because they don’t agree with your politics.
Great presentation. However, I think this is a more serious issue than something that’s broadcast on “Casual Friday.”
There’s this really great site I know thats already barely hanging in there by a thread. This would crush them! Don’t squash the lil guy! Man, the rich just keep gettin richer and the rest of us are just screwed.
Excellent, Amanda and Drew.
The inaccuracies within this self-serving propaganda piece are outrageous.
Thank you for addressing this topic. You go rocketfolk!
Great commentary on an improtant issue. I don’t know if everyone realizes the implications> As a rural ISP I can tell you that this issue will become huge as the telco cable wars continue. Thanks from the “little guy”. Keep it up!
I just want to say Amanda, you totally gave me goosebumps at the end of todays episode. I think a lot of people would not know anything is happening at all until they could no longer access the sites they want and it would be too late.
Keep up the good work!
-SK
Well done!
sgl
Am I the only one who found the t-shirt choice to be a little ironic?
Thanks for shaking it up and telling the story in a more detailed way.. however I didnt quite understand what craigslist has to do with tsunamis?
A main outcome of pay-for-access will be fragmentation. As in, when TV in the UK moved into Sky etc, the standard of content on terrestial TV dropped dramatically, as they didnt have the money to pay for higher profile content. The outcome of this was that the market for certain programmes shrank to near zero. Conversely, stars and sportsmen, for example, were no longer household names, as they were no longer seen on terrestial TV, only on the pay-per-view satellite channels (which could pay them much higher fees), but which still have lower take up than was ever anticipated.
The current situation on UK TV for music is a prime example - there isnt any real coverage of music at all on terrestial TV, and this is reflected in national low sales and shrinking markets.
The effect on the internet will be the same. Fragmentation, by cost, or other means, is always bad news for the market, as awareness of ’stuf’ is paramount to market forces. Market forces can’t exist if most people don’t know about the product.
What happens in the USA will effect the entire world-wide internet. The USA ‘owns’ the internet. Without their infrastructure, it would cease to exist, certainly in it’s present form.
We all pay for access, but at present don’t pay for content or functions. With the spouted idea of pay-email, another tier is raising its head.
A two tier internet will probably be inevitable. After all, we already have that, as most people in most countries only have dial up access and bad computers.
And what about Rocketboom paying large amounts of $$$ for their sparkly new servers? They pay for us to view their content.
We need a better model to ensure that all can view anything, but money can be charged, in a meaningful and fair way. What about personal/commercial licences for access?
Hi, cool show as always.
Needed cheering up as Togo couldn’t come up with the goods vs les Bleues…
I’m with “S” as I’m the the UK too.
Also totally agree with Deano and the BMan.
Have a great weekend.
And, for what it’s worth I think you guys were robbed vs Italy this week. 2 red cards? V. bad decision. At least you played with more spirit than Beckham et al.
Yours irrelevantly (as always)
Niko
Hmmmm … interesting digression from the norm. A serious political stand … delivered with vigor and conviction.
Has Amanda morphed into the Edward G. Murrow of the Web?
When that intelligence and passion blaze from that beautiful face … wow.
More importantly … Net Neutrality must never be compromised. The history of mankind is the weaker and smaller being quashed by the power elite. The Net changed all of that. That’s why a cute , bright gal from from the grass roots could become a media personality and cover what she wants to cover.
The Net is THE force for change in the world today … no one can get away with too much for too long … as long as people can talk, freely. Across borders.
I hope and pray the Net stays out of the kind of control Amanda described.
And on behalf of Amanda, may I say …
Good night. And good luck.
Bill the PR guy
Um, that’s Edward R. Murrow.
Loved the segment. Although, I don’t believe strict net neutrality regulations will pass through Congress. The recent amendment (in some form) containing the so-called “Internet Bill of Rights” submitted by Sen. Ted Stevens is probably about as stringent as it will get.
gee,
what is happening there in the US?
You raised my curiosity. I will start some reading.
Thanks,
Gunther (Germany)
Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says
The Number of People Who Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201763_pf.html
ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO UNPLUG NOW!
Your scare tactics will raise the ire of a very vocal community, but your basic premise is incorrect: that the evil Internet access providers need to be prevented from managing the traffic on their network because they may potentially degrade or block service. Using this logic I would assume that you agree with Bush to go to war against Iraq because they have WMD. Now that WMD have actually been found you could make your point. In any case, the FCC has been effective in policing any abuses so why do we need additional vague and potentially harmful legislation. The truth is that most net neutrality legislation will potentially stifle innovation on the Internet because it will make utilization of traffic shaping tools illegal. These tools are mechanisms that Netflix, Google video, Vonage and many other Internet application providers can utilize to guarantee a consistent and quality user experience. Throwing more bandwidth at the problem is not the answer because there are other choke points in the network. Be careful advocating policy over the Internet because it may actually hurt instead of helping. I for one would pay an extra $5 per month to cable and telephone companies to give me the ability to increase the priority of my VoIP and streaming video traffic as it moves through the network.
Daniel:
True that the RBOC and cable companies will make money from implementing this service, but they know that they cannot discriminate towards their own IPTV and VoIP services. That is why they announced offering it to other Internet application providers. The problem is that they were less than smooth articulating their plans to customers. RBOC executives are not known for their ability to communicate well. This capability is being offered in Europe and Asia and no one is complaining there. Search Technorati for blogs on net neutrality and RBOC. You will find a couple of blogs providing an unbiased analysis.
It’s the end of the internet as we have known it. I don’t think there is any stopping it now. I’m Irish so I had no say in what happened in the American decision. But you know what, needier did any of you US citizens. The Republicans are on the side of the telecom companies and hold the majority, no amount of lobbying was going to change that. We are supposed to live in free societies where governments reflect the will of the people, the majority of people do not want an end to net neutrality, yet it happened anyway. It seems all we do in a democracy is choose the rice old men who rule us.
Nice explanation. & yeah, this is pretty serious. *signed*
TeraLink Was Here!
I am a UK watcher of RocketBoom but I feel strongly about Net Neutrality. If this doesn’t happen then its big business and the government collaborating to make more cash. It’s totally corrupt, dishonest and even if it is not illegal in the law it should be. Everyone can tell right from wrong.
SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY!!!
chiko, this country is about the money, you make the money, you get the power, you get the power, you make the money. got it pussy cat.
Word
Check out KATG.com to learn more about how to make money from this AND save the internet. ok it’s porn
with extra cheese
Guys… drop the craigslist thing. You were fine until then. Craigslist had their window size set to 0 which triggered a bug in software that is distributed to all cox customers. Craigslist could have fixed this at any time. One server setting for them, vs trying to get every cox customer to update their software. (Which has been fixed by the way).
Both were at fault, but Craigslist could have fixed theirs in about 5 minutes had they chosen to do so. What’s worse is that people keep trumpeting them around.
Now… The point is valid that a cox type entity could certainly intentionally do this type of thing to a craigslist type of company. But that ISN’T what happened here. I have no problem with that being presented as a what could happen, but it keeps getting put up as a fact of what did happen and that’s not true.
Excellent job to all involved.
oh yeah…. (really) nice shoes.
Ok, Amanda. I for one will not kiss up to you and pretend that you gave some prize-winning presentation reguarding this issue. You, and too many people on this site, seem to think that the internet is some sort of God-given right. Earth to Rocketboom: You are using PRIVATE companies to access the internet. Where to you get off demanding that the government control what these private companies can and cannot do with their services? If you dont like the way they do business, GET ANOTHER ISP! Seriously, you all are sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats.
The intrnet has NEVER been a public entity, someone has to make money in order for this thing to survive. That may not compute in the tra-la-la world of Rocketboom, but most people with a basic understanding of economics could figure this one out.
Does it suck? Yes! But who ever said life was fair.
btw. Can Rocketboom become political neutral? I think I’ll work a bill through congress to force you to do that.
Oh that amanda is so wacky. I love to hear crazy consperices! I give credit at least she did not try to blame george bush for all of what she was talking about. Remember kids!! Liberalism is a metal disorder..
Bin Ladin owns, runs and operates the internet. End of story.
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Remember when the net had no ads whatsoever?
What do you see now?
Cyber terrorism. Darwinian economics.
I am Bin Ladin Inc. and I own the internet.
Bin Ladin owns, runs and operates the internet. End of story.
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Remember when the net had no ads whatsoever?
What do you see now?
Cyber terrorism. Darwinian economics.
I am Bin Ladin Inc. and I own the internet.
yah i think you owe to everyone to be politically neutral. you should try presenting things without your personal opinion involved so much. you want to be a great new online news service but you are just as good as CNN or worse. Try being more like fox news unbiased. As a forerunner in video blogging rocketboom neutrality is a must!
SPEAK OUT! EMAIL ROCKETBOOM TODAY AND DEMAND NEUTRALITY!
Adelphia cable blows chunks…whoops, that was out-loud, wasn’t it?
Great report. Mr. Telcoman I pay so I don’t from FREE.
Aren’t the laws that govern the phone companies (common carrier) different from those of tv and broadcast (public interest). The common carrier laws are more for public service entities, where the broadcast and cable laws cover areas like foreign ownership, cross media ownership, and egad! FREE SPEECH. The internet can be impacted by common carrier laws (government), or protected under free speech and the first amendment (the bill of rights and the U.S. Constitution). Seems to me that the internet can spread Democracy faster than a utility. Get off the grid, get on the internet and be free. Comments?
Neutrality: Thanks
In the usual business structure, a source, Nike say, creates something, a distributer, Sears say, buys it from them, and makes it available to its customers who reimburse Sears for the item and all the distribution costs.
In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.
If Sears, Wall Mart, and other major distributors baned together and told a source that it would have to pay for having them as its distributors, they would be engaging in extortion, and would be subject to severe penalties since this is a criminal offense.
However, when Verison, AT+T, and other major Internet distributors ban together and request that their, free, sources have to pay for having them as distributors, people actually take them seriously!
Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning.
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
This is awesome. You’re voice is being heard. You’ve got a great opportunity to expand that even more exponentially right now. Post all of your videos on YouTube… all your archived pieces and all new pieces… Your audience, which to a large degree at the moment includes ANYONE LOOKING FOR ONLINE VIDEO CONTENT… and right now more people are migrating to YouTube to watch video onine. The same growth rate that happened to Myspace a little while back is CURRENTLY going on at YouTube. You get a surge in connectivity just by being at the current hotspot of connectivity. You’re going to be on there just like you’re on MySpace… recognise the trend and get on there sooner to best use the current to connect with more people
casual just got bumped up ehhh…
wow…wonderful, essay like in your face video
“In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money for it at all, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.”
Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you. If Google was putting a greater strain on that infastructure to the point where Verizon had to pay money in order to expand their network in order to accomodate Google, then Google has recived a free boost. Google recives billions in on-line revenue, while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
How is that fair? Oh yeah, the internet is a “right” so say the braintrust at Rocketboom.
Kevin Rose writes: Verizon has to pay for all of the infastructure to carry that “free” content from Google to you.
Verizon’s customers are paying for it. As a customer you pay a monthly fee for fixed bandwidth, which you can use as you like. Google’s content costs Verizon no more to carry over their customer’s wires than any other content.
while Verizion doesnt get a dime for making Google run smoother.
Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU…ABOUT BIG BUSINESS
“Because it didn’t cost a dime for “Verizion” to make Google “run smoother”. Verizon gets paid by their customers for the bandwidth they use. They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well. End of story.”
How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you? Many of these companies may be eating much of the cost so they dont have to pass it on to the end user, which will lead to a loss of customers if the bill gets too high?
“They don’t need to demand for money from Google as well”
Why not? Google’s content goes through their pipes just like your request for it.
Could you add subtitles? Pleease?
Kevin, if the money that the customers of Verizon pay is not enough, then Verizon should put up their prices rather than adopt this retarded get-money-from-both-sides scheme.
This is too important an issue to just brush away. Although Net Neutrality might not neccessarily mean the same thing as Fair and Equal Access, these are two concepts (by virtue of my profession) I must support. I suggest that in future episodes of RB, you deliver a summary of reactions to this piece.
What a trove of insight into both the information and the misinformation swirling around in this potentially emotional issue.
I still can’t grasp how maintaining access to craigslist (threatened for whatever reason) would be helpful to the tsunami victims — or was that the joke?
Better than the road analogy, Manhattan bridges and tunnels would be a better one — the Brooklyn bridge is free but it can take a while sometimes. The Battery Tunnel is a good alternate and sometimes worth a little money when you’re in a hurry.
Neither option, by the way, has any effect on the cost of real estate on Manhattan island - just as any potential net neutrality regs will not have any real effect on the costs passed around by the backbone providers.
Absolute garbage.
Kevin Rose writes: How do you know that that monthly check that you mail off covers all the cost of getting that content to you?
Because they set the prices themselves. I have contracted with Verizon to provide me with a certain fixed bandwidth. They have promised me that I will get that bandwith with a reasonable degree of reliability for a price which they themselves have set.
If they can’t do it, they should charge correct prices. Trust me, they are not running at a loss — lacking any serious competition, telcos do not provide any service at a loss. Even they don’t claim that it costs them more to carry Google to a customer than the customer is paying. Instead they lie and say that “Google is using their pipes for free.” This is false. I am using their pipes, using the 1.5Mb/sec inbound bandwidth which I am paying for. Google pays millions for bandwidth at their end. That should be the end of it.
Kevin, if you don’t think Verizon or whoever is making enough money, why don’t you write them a personal check for whatever you think they need? I’m already paying the price they set for the service I use — inbound and outbound. They neither need to know nor care who I’m connecting to because I’m paying for both directions. And so, by the way, is Google, to their providers.
Way to Go…thanks for the superb and effective piece.
Go Net Neutrality!
Go Switzerland!
“These are companies who are generating massive profits as it is”
And thats what this boils down to. A bunch of socialist who want the federal government to take control of private business because the pricing structure is not cool with them. And the fact that you try to wrap it around the banner of “the government is just protecting me” BS is just sad. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING YOU FROM SICKNESS! We are talking about you not being able to download boatloads of videos and music without having to pay more.
Welcome to a free market! If you dont want to play their way, THEN DONT USE THE D@MN SERVICE. Have no other choice? Take it up with your local government and open up some choices in your city.
Seriously, some of you seem to be thinking like children on this issue. The “telecos” are not a charity. They are in the business to make money, just like *GASP* the people at Rocketboom! I dont like the idea of what they want to do, but Im sure as hell not going support socialist style bill through congress in order to see that changed.
This is one of the worst assessments of Net Neutrality I’ve seen. Net Neutrality is not about making users select one ads-free classified site over another, its not about what is in consumers’ best interests. It is about two seperate sets of very powerful corporations that started in seemingly unrelated industries, but now find themselves in direct competition with one another.
It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies. Film, Video, and TV show distribution, and advertising, are all becoming less profitable for cable companies, as are telephone calls for telcos due to VoIP, iTunes Music/Video Store, Google Video/AdSense, etc…
Of course RocketBoom releases something like this; They take the side of the web services company and of course would not want to pay additional bandwidth fees. This has nothing to do with the little guy because the little guy wouldn’t be effected by this until he was a player in the game, and once he was a player, he can afford it. Exclusive marketing alliances are also not as much of a concern, because theyre not in any company’s best interest; if one competitor works with one company, and another with another, then they both limit their power and scope. All the cable and telcos want is fair compensation for the vast amounts of bandwidth some companies use these days.
It is so cushy to be a website like these days. Simply, net based businesses need to get used to another line item in their budget and a slight decrease in their absurd ad revenue related profitability.
Nice volvo.
If you want to bitch about monopolistic practices, why not blog about the electricity service providers. You’ve not got much choice when it comes to which one to choose, right? Well, that’s fair. After all, they put the wires in. Hmmm so did the telco, though. But then you are not trying to make money off the back of the electricity provider, are you! Telco’s don’t want to restrict service, they want to charge to provide a premium service. BIG difference. But you know that, don’t you. And, btw, from out here in suburbia USA, I’ve got at least 4 choices for internet access. Even the most rural areas are getting 2 choices these days – cable or DSL.
Newsflash! Anyone who already deals with ordering data lines knows that the internet is already tiered! Blocking is definitely crap, but throttling is already business as usual for years. Too late!
wow. I’m Canadian. Podcast from Canada. You guys need a new puppet regime.
Wow. There are a lot of industry shills commenting here now. For example, “Modern Demagogue” writes: It is unfair when companies such as Apple and Google directly compete with cable companies revenue producing endeavors, exploit the cable company’s assets in order to make a sale or profit, and expect this to continue without compensating the infrastructure companies.
BZZZZT! Wrong. Tell whoever paid you to post that to give you material that fits the facts next time. The content companies do pay for bandwidth; they pay millions in fees to get their stuff on the internet. And they don’t use the last-mile bandwidth to the home without paying, because it’s already being paid for by the customers. When I download video from YouTube, I am using bandwidth that I have paid for. My contract says 768kbps up and 1500kbps down. The telcos are being compensated in the amount they are entitled to and at the rate agreed upon.
The problem is not that they aren’t being compensated (they are), the problem is they want a piece of everybody else’s action: give us money or we’ll prevent your customers from getting to your site. Even though the customer are paying already the full, agreed price for the bandwidth used.
Got any other lobbyist propaganda to peddle?
Harry Stottle, I doubt that the ISPs will have many qualms about operating on a whitelist-based scheme, moreover, on IP addresses. Are you honestly telling me that the anonymizer proxy you connect to will be able to afford these fees, and, even if they could, I doubt the ISP would take them, as all it would do is facilitate the anonymizer service punching a hole in their revenue scheme.
The proposal would impose higher costs on sites that account for a lot of bandwidth e.g. popular vlog sites. Regardless of the economics or fairness of the proposal, that is why RB is against it.
Ok, she was wrong about the Cox/Craigslist thing. Give her a break. She has a daily fricking vlog to do and I for one hope this stupid issue does not lower her head. (Is that a take? Thanks, guys. Crazy nutjob if I ever saw one, but watta doll!)
WOW! At lest in in the United Kingdom we have not looked at the internet as a way of a social/ economic intrument. Granted we have one telecom company running the infra strsucture, buut this has arised from a privatised government department, formaly the GPO and therefore access is/ was all inclusive.However, like everything over this side of the pond with the current politcal climate we will probally follow like sheep saying is it si ‘American’ and therefore ‘cool’. So we British must not get complacient. Great site thought provoking ideas
Thanks Amanda and crew, its not just her you know!
The telcos claim that net neutrality would prevent them from making enough money to keep upgrading their infrastructure. Um. Not quite.
The thing that is keeping them from upgrading their services to meet demand is the way they price net access - typically a flat monthly fee. This is popular with the consumer, but that is the real problem the telcos are facing.
The people who use more bandwidth should pay for it. That way there is always an incentive to the telco to invest in infrastructure, and the burden of cost is distributed fairly.
In the video, Amanda seemed to be concerned for the little guy trying to run a website. But what about the other little guy - e.g. my parents - who don’t know what bittorrent is, and just browse a few web pages and send emails - but they pay the same as someone who spends all day and all night downloading movies. Does that seem fair to you?
All I’m saying is, if people were willing to pay for their net usage, the telcos wouldn’t be forced in this situation.
Thank you Amanda.
Clear arguments. Let’s hope that big biz doesn’t squash us here like they have in every other place.
this is totally sensationalist. No ISP is going to block you from using craigslist ever, that’s totally ridiculous. More likely what they will do is offer improved behind the scenes traffic to certain types of traffic and decreased behind the scenes traffic to other types. For example they might make Google pay more, but big whoop, they have billions in profit. You won’t notice the difference.
Look what THEY did to the electric car.
You see THEY put out a hummer to guzzle more gasoline and people are so stupid, they bought into it. The virtual highway is no different than the concrete highway. IF they can they will.
GUAGE. GUAGE. GUAGE.
And they will, because they can. Because hummer brains exist everywhere.
I’m calling Daryl Hannah right now. Together up in some tree, we’ll figure out a way for James Birkett’s parents to get free net access. They don’t deserve to get gauged. gauged. gauged…
Do you hear me???
GAUGED!
UNPLUG NOW!
BUY SOME CORN.
Seriously you guys, good job, thanks so much for doing this video! We are trying to make as many people as we can aware of this too. Keep it up over there,
Arin & Susan
Eh the guy using the Kevin Rose name on here (obviously not the real Kevin Rose) has got some sand is his vagina. I mean what a rant.
Any chance you work for AT&T mate.
Noone owns the internet!!!!
I just got chills.
It’s a complex issue, but you can’t turn back the clock when it comes to advancing communication and technology. Information wants to be free.
And when all else fails: get your HAM radio license!
Nicely done! That was the “Picture”, here’s the “1000 words” version:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
what’s sad is that these so-called telcos are acting like a bunch of pathetic idiots about this whole net neutrality thing. do they REALLY need more money? NO, they do not. why the HELL do they have to go and mess up a good thing then? as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Enjoyed the content of this piece Friday June 23, 2006. Democracy does need to be vigilant in a market economy. I would urge Rocketboom to keep bearing the yoke of this important issue. There was piece on the radio this morning that spoke to not so much to access and who allows it, but the haves and the have nots in a world (country) where access to information can enlighted a road out of poverty, and where the lack of this access can make ensnare folks in chronic poverty.
many thanks, Iz
As a small-fry content developer, I do take issue with tiered proposals of access. However, whereas pleading with congress might bring about an enforced status quo, are there any other strategies for maintaining a free and open internet?
Aren’t we harming ourselves by relying on large corporations to supply our bandwidth… can we get around that somehow? Are there efforts being made in that direction? Let’s build our own bandwidth!
I agree with the other individual who says the craigslist issue just makes the argument weaker and more complicated. Let’s not be another spin doctor. Net Neutrality: a matter of life and death? Okay maybe like one in a five million chance. But the fact that it would affect everyone’s daily surfing habits makes for a much better argument and one that EVERYBODY can relate to.
AMANDA IS NOT ONLY BEAUTIFUL AND TALENTED BUT ALSO VERY SMART AND ARTICULATE. THIS IS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF NET NEUTRALITY I HAVE EVER SEEN. I’M GOING TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE I KNOW INCLUSING MY SEANTORS. WAY