A million signatures for something that isn't even proposed yet? Say what you will about Americans being apathetic political people, but when it comes to the threat of them taking away our internet, it's over! I don't care who we elect to be leader of the free world, but if I can't stream old episodes of Doug, then I refuse to live in this country. It might sound crazy, but the debate over net neutrality are heating up. According to the New York Times article, "Defending the Open Internet", the internet is essentially up for grabs-- should it regulated as an utility? Something that is almost like a public commodity like electricity or indoor plumbing? Should companies like Netflix be able to pay to make their transmission into viewers homes faster? If they're willing to pay for it, then it should be allowed, argue some. On the other hand, shouldn't internet be equal for all? But their livelihood (providing entertainment to people as quickly as possible) is critically dependent on the speed of the internet!
My guess? The FCC will let them do it, but the cost will be high to begin with. As they begin to agree on how to create and define the pricing tiers, the elite companies will pay the exorbitant amounts, and the little guys (non-Netflix) will begin to be pushed out. It will also be harder for two guys to start something in the garage (as the founder of Digg has pointed out) but this simply means the big guys will have more incentive to fund the little guys, which decreases creativity, but increases the burden on the larger corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment