grelmar - 12:21 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm going to weigh in on the side of net neutrality.

The Google's and YouTubes of the net already pay a premium for the bandwidth they use. The more bandwidth they use, the higher access fees they have to pay. Just like Joe consumer, who pays more for broadband than he does for dial-up.

What the TelCo's are asking for is, effectively, a form of corporate censorship. They'll be able to determine who gets premium delivery of service to the end user, based on who pays a higher fee.

There are just so many ways that the proposed system can be abused, it isn't even funny.

Another problem, is that if net neutrality is dropped, this will be yet another incentive for US e-businesses to move offshore. Remember, this is a debate that's happening primarily in the US. I don't know of any other nation that is considering a change to net neutrality. If the change is implimented in the US, it will become desireable for many corporations to move offshore. Sure, they may have to pay a premium to access customers in the US if they do, but they'll have the rest of the planet open to deliver their content to on a traditional net neutral basis.

But American lawmakers don't see this. Typically, they see the US as the center of the known Universe, and believe that any change they make to internal regulations will automatically be implimented elsewhere. And this is extremely unlikely. Foreign carriers will see an opportunity, and actively market to gain business. They'll also lobby their respective governments to keep net neutrality intact.

When MS and Google are on the same side of any issue, it really bears looking at.

When MS, Google, Yahoo, AOL, are all on the same side of an issue, failing to ask why is foolish. Especially if they're all lined up against other "Big Business" entities.