Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to oliphant5
Re: IMHO the main concern
I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening now but its just not publicised. In a way it is because for example SBC is tied to Yahoo! so I would expect there is a nice fat behind the scenes trunk line between the 2. But who is to say this can't happen already? All you gotta do is filter certian ip blocks out, or have certian IP's blocked on the faster lines and open on the slower ones.....
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network:::: »www.foreverchat.net |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TheMadSwede
Here is how it happens....
There are some real dangers here, fortunately not yet materialized.
For now, throttling the competition doesn't seem to be a big problem, but I too worry that it will become one--perhaps by giving favored content "enhanced" access, rather than "restricting" the competition.
Example: Perhaps limited play downloads of HDTV movies become a big Internet item. What happens when your broadband provider agrees to turn off the traffic shaper/meter for "preferred" downloads? Will you still shop "Angie's Movie Outlet" and download at 1.6Meg when your affiliated "ISP Movie Store" can give you the same download at 5Meg? (Advocates will yell, ISPs will claim "we're not hurting Angie, we're just helping ourselves," and point out that it's just another form of "bundling" products.)
Either way, it ends up being an uneven playing field.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to oliphant5
Re: IMHO the main concern
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I don't know if it is illegal (in the truest sense of the word) for an ISP to restrict content/access.
That said, the only thing the general public has going for it is that any company that tries to control bandwidth (or even access) in the manner oliphant describes could face a PR backlash if their shady measures are proven to be true.
I am not one so silly to think that PR is all that matters to corporations, but most media companies want to appear to their customers as free and open, even if that's not what they are. Just a thought.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Would be more underhanded anti-competitive commercial tactics like bandwidth throttling competitors sites. With the internet, unlike television and radio, there are virtually an infinite number of news, and of course various other opinion, sites so I don't see outright censorship. What I see happening would be say an ISP owned by one news or media organization hosing connections to competitors' news or media sites, effectively monopolizing that type of content for their own subscribers.
Also, it looks like some in Congress are looking to reverse the FCC's decision on media ownership rules through new legislation.
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar···l15.html
--
"Countries...have a right to be free, and we a right to aid them, as a strong man has a right to assist a weak one assailed by a robber or murderer." --Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-16 15:35:37] |
|
