|
Broadband Connection Getting Slower? Part IIb
|
05-Jan-2009
|
|
Continuing now with Part IIb, the 'claimants', otherwise known as the end users.
To say that advocates for Net Neutrality are the computer-geek version of granola-crunching hippies would...not be entirely inaccurate. The ideological lines here are in fact clearly drawn between Capitalism ('Caveat emptor' really means you get what you pay for...) verses Communism (gim'me same as him, don't care how, don't care why!). Though a capitalist through and through, there are many valid points on the red side of this discussion.
We Used To Have It, How Can You Take It Away?
Again, as previously stated, the Internet started out in free-for-all, no-holds-barred, do whatever you want type network that was pioneered by techno-hippies, comp-sci grads (...same as techno-hippies at the time), and the...military. Yeah, very odd combination. But, hey, it worked. Or at least it got us to here, right?
The problem is that, these same users, who have migrated through the various Stages of the Internet, with a trail of Terms of Service agreements along the way, are suddenly finding their Terms changed, on the provider's terms; not theirs. And this presents somewhat of an ethical problem.
When two parties enter into an agreement, typically it takes both parties – or legal authority - to alter the agreement. It is very common for the end user to find terms and conditions changed, anybody who has a credit card that started at 6% and got a lovely piece of paper several months later indicating that there was supposed to be a 2 in front of the 6 knows exactly what I'm talking about, but is this really legal or appropriate? Some say yes, others no.
Standard Oil, Digitized
It is not inaccurate to look at the activities of the various major broadband providers and directly correlate them with the various companies that constituted the Standard Oil Trust. Instead of the free market that once was the Internet Service Provider field, we now have cable companies – that are legally monopolistic, competing with telephone companies, that are also legally monopolistic (to an extent...), and satellite, which has failed dismally in terms of what it promised and delivered. Any person wanting real broadband essentially has at most three real competitors, more likely only two. And when both are selling practically the same product, on practically the same terms, you start to wonder just who is fooling whom here...to use the term 'racketeering' would be very accurate, indeed.
Slice'em And Dice'em
Another chief complaint is that the providers have changed the Terms Of Service agreements not really along lines of service, but rather instead have tried to change the Internet itself. Again, the Internet is an all-encompassing body that is controlled by no one, and is communication by an agreed upon set of protocols. The question then becomes, if you stop selling part of those protocols, are you really still selling an Internet connection? The answer, realistically, is no.
The issue is further compounded when multiple companies start cutting out parts of the Internet. By definition, if it's an agreed upon set of protocols, and everybody agrees not to use certain ones, does that not meet the original definition of agreed upon set of protocols? Is the Internet not a living entity? Is it a stone monolith from days of yore, that shall never change ever more?
Part II to be concluded in Part IIc, my resolution. |
|
