Margaret B
New member
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the way the FCC was attempting to apply some sort of network neutrality rules to Comcast (US largest cable internet provider), yesterday new rules were issued.
The whole debate, for those who either haven't paid attention, or who don't live in the U.S., revolves around a republican-era decision to classify internet access as 'message services' (under what's known as 'Title 1') rather than general telecommunications services, like telephone/voice traffic ('Title 2').
The newest wrinkle is what might be considered 'Title 2 Lite' in that most of the Title 2 regulations are applied to ISP's but with a few parts 'left out' to supposedly give a bit of free reign to providers.
The basic issue (i.e. 'net neutrality') comes down to this: Can a provider delay, inhibit, choke, or otherwise interfere with internet traffic from/to their 'customers'. Like for instance (comparing to voice/telephone traffic), charging extra to connect your calls to a person on a different provider, or perhaps not allowing that call to go through at all (which is what Comcast was doing).
A good overview and a place to start for those wishing to delve further into this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/195840/fcc_changes_terms_in_net_neutrality_debate.html
Lots of folks think all of this is WAY to esoteric, but unless lots of folks get current with the debate, the internet (from a U.S. perspective) could have easily turned into a cable-tv clone where sites/traffic types would be chopped up into costly 'service tiers', IF actual service was available/usable.
The whole debate, for those who either haven't paid attention, or who don't live in the U.S., revolves around a republican-era decision to classify internet access as 'message services' (under what's known as 'Title 1') rather than general telecommunications services, like telephone/voice traffic ('Title 2').
The newest wrinkle is what might be considered 'Title 2 Lite' in that most of the Title 2 regulations are applied to ISP's but with a few parts 'left out' to supposedly give a bit of free reign to providers.
The basic issue (i.e. 'net neutrality') comes down to this: Can a provider delay, inhibit, choke, or otherwise interfere with internet traffic from/to their 'customers'. Like for instance (comparing to voice/telephone traffic), charging extra to connect your calls to a person on a different provider, or perhaps not allowing that call to go through at all (which is what Comcast was doing).
A good overview and a place to start for those wishing to delve further into this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/195840/fcc_changes_terms_in_net_neutrality_debate.html
Lots of folks think all of this is WAY to esoteric, but unless lots of folks get current with the debate, the internet (from a U.S. perspective) could have easily turned into a cable-tv clone where sites/traffic types would be chopped up into costly 'service tiers', IF actual service was available/usable.