backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by Eris23007.. on Sep 25 at 7:02 PM

...And instead talks about the importance of cable TV access

In a recent survey conducted by The Glover Park Group and Public Opinion Strategies LLC, 90 percent of Americans said they preferred to have choices for video service providers over net neutrality. Interestingly, the survey did not appear to address the real issue of net neutrality, which is whether or not network service providers should create tiered networks based on application and client. Instead, survey takers were simply asked whether or not they were more concerned about cable TV choices or net neutrality.

DailyTech has been following the net neutrality topic since the beginning of 2006. So far, the topic is still up in the air, but many content developers are saying that by allowing service providers to create tiered networks, it would impede on the development of Internet services and web applications. If things don't turn out well for net neutrality, Google previously stated it would start filing anti-trust cases against major telcos.

The questions in the survey conducted by The Glover Park Group also seemed to be one sided. For example, the questions about cable TV choices were easy to understand and well explained, but those concerning net neutrality were not. The survey explained that net neutrality as "enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed Internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee." Technically, all service providers sell different packages that offer a variety of speeds and email options. From the explanation, the survey made it appear as though the questions were directed at the user, when in fact the issue has to do a lot more with content providers.

For example, we have Content Provider A, which sells books and music CDs online. We also have Content Provider B, which competes with A. We also have an "Internet service provider" that has a large customer base. If Content Provider A pays the "Internet service provider" a certain amount of money to allow users access to its site faster and easier than Content Provider B, herein we have the problem of net neutrality -- or the lack of. From the end user's standpoint, he or she would just be thinking "B seems to always be slow, I think I'll just shop at A."

Despite the obvious flaw in questioning, The Glover Park Group found (PDF) the following:
  • 66 percent were more concerned with delivering TV and video services
  • 19 percent were concerned with net neutrality
  • 3 percent were concerned with both
  • 8 percent were concerned with neither
  • 4 percent didn't know or refused to answer
Interestingly, when asked how many people have even heard of net neutrality, 91 percent said no and only 7 percent said yes. The remaining 1 percent didn't know. In fact, the majority of the survey revolved around cable TV choices. The US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation contracted the survey and published the findings as authoritative, which can be read here. From the release:

The survey found that very few registered voters are familiar with the issue of network neutrality. In some regions of the country, only 5 percent of likely voters had even heard of “Net Neutrality.” The survey found broad support for a “Consumer Internet Bill of Rights,” like that contained in the Senate’s communications bill. The provision contained in the Senate bill prevents Internet service providers from blocking access to competitors or degrading a consumer’s broadband service.  According to the survey, when presented with a choice between video choice and additional net neutrality legislation, an overwhelming majority of voters supported video choice.

In other words, the US government is downplaying the importance of net neutrality for both consumers and content providers by introducing a much more well known everyday topic of cable TV. The poll was funded by Verizon, which previously said that it disagreed with the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). The COPE act allows local governments to collect up to five percent of fees from Internet service providers to put towards developing high speed access in areas without it. The COPE act also will allow local governments to control what Internet service providers do and what they can charge customers if they are the only provider in a certain area -- i.e. monopoly.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
By nerdboy on 9/20/2006 12:02:53 PM , Rating: 5
Right now Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the First Amendment of the Internet -- a principle called "network neutrality" that preserves the free and open Internet. Congress needs to hear from you today or they will hand over control of what you do online to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Everyone must go to this website.




RE: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
By Rike on 9/20/2006 3:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Link reposted for easy clicking.

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet


By soydios on 9/21/2006 12:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
+1 *FOR* Net Neutrality

The Internet should remain equal for all.


RE: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
By dwalton on 9/20/2006 5:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't care if tiered networks were introduced, but only on the condition of free access to the internet.

Brick and mortar shops pay a premium to place their stores in prime real estate spots, which attract customers because of things such as accessiblity. If tier networks were set up in the same way, I see nothing wrong with it.

An analogy of the current situation is that all websites are located the same distance from you the customer/viewer but are located on toll roads controlled by the ISPs.

If providing a tiered network that allowed websites to located at different distance but located on free access roads, then I would be all for it.

What I am against is tier network yet still forced you to pay for access. Thats like having to pay a cover charge just to go to the mall.


RE: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
By soydios on 9/21/2006 1:03:17 AM , Rating: 1
In some ways, telcos already have tiered networks: they charge different prices for different bandwidth packages.

If you want to surf the Internet faster, you buy a higher-bandwidth access package.
If a content provider wants to provide content faster, then it buys a faster upload bandwidth package.

I see no good reason why the telcos must insert an extra unnecessary and discriminatory fee to get data across the middle. Bandwidth is already paid for at either end. Furthermore, it's my opinion that the Internet, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of continued economic growth, should remain untiered in the middle. A new economy has sprung up on the basis that the Internet is an open highway to the rest of the world.


By marvdmartian on 9/21/2006 10:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but if the internet providers can force BOTH ends to pay for increased bandwidth, then they win, don't they??

This isn't so much like charging people to go to the mall, it's more like charging you to walk into the individual shops!


By TheLiberalTruth on 9/21/2006 11:24:46 PM , Rating: 5
This is more like the mob (being played by the ISPs) legally being allowed to charge protection money from shopkeepers (Content providers) so their stores (web sites) don't run into any *ahem* difficulties.
It's considered organized crime when a group of people do it to brick and mortar stores, but it's fair game when a corporation does it to e-tailers? Bull.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki