eric76 wrote:
Hi_Im_B0B wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If the ISPs here were required to become common carriers, only the large ones would survive. The smallest ISP in the area easily at present is well known in the area for offering the best service. Require them to become common carrier and they would have no option but to fold. The result would be higher prices and lower services.
That would pretty much be true with small ISPs across the country. In some places that would mean that the only non-satellite ISP servicing an area would be out of business.
Instead of helping their customers, it would reduce choice, increase fees, and result in much crappier service.
no, no... they are now common carriers - they have to treat all traffic moving over their network the same. with the end of net neutrality, they will no longer have to be common carriers and will be able to give preferential bandwidth to content providers (websites) based on business agreements. if you have a website you will be able to pay ISP's to give your content higher speeds, or to give your competitors crap connections.
The term "common carrier" is a legal term. In the case of telecommunications, ISPs are not included in the term.
the term "common carrier" also has casual usage, as seen in the opening paragraph of the
wikipedia entry on Net Neutrality (emphasis added):
[quote=wikipedia]Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.
The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4] Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.[/quote]
11 Sep 2014, 12:04 pm
