The whole net neutrality issue was born, to some extent, when the former head of SBC/AT&T hinted in an interview some years ago that companies like YouTube should be paying SBC/AT&T to push data over its pipes to its customers.  It was, in the war between the carriers and the content publishers, the proverbial "shot heard 'round the world".   Here's what he told BusinessWeek in 2006:

 What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that.

So maybe right now the argument is centered around content companies the likes of Google, Apple and Hulu, and service providers like Vonage and Skype.  Those are big names.  Names you know.  If the carriers have their way, they'll be allowed to block or otherwise slow/filter packets that flow between these companies and their users.  Naturally, they'll tell you that they have to do it to ensure that the network remains congestion free and that resources are allocated properly to all paying customers.  There's validity in that, but the next logical step is for carrier X to approach Google to offer them a free-and-clear path to its customers if Google is willing to pony up some cash.  That means that you're paying to send your packets onto the Net, and Google is paying to send them back to you.

Fast forward a few years, and now most of the major content and service companies have either started to pay the carriers, or have been squeezed out.  If I'm Time Warner or AT&T, and I know that I can charge companies like Google to use my pipes, then why wouldn't I look to charge any company that wants to deliver "high bandwidth" content and services.  Sites with audio and video.  Games.  File sharing.  Bandwidth hogs!  Sorry, but you're going to have to pay us to reach the customers that also pay us.

One of our  customers operates a very large and successful niche web site catering to a specific group of people here on Long Island.  They also happen to be in competition with a few others trying to do the same thing, including the Long Island newspaper, Newsday.  Without the protection of net neutrality principles, what's to stop Cablevision from pitting our customer against Newsday in a "whomever pays more gets to use our pipes" bidding war?  In the first place, Newsday is 100 times the size of our customer.  In the second place, Newsday happens to be owned by ..... Cablevision.  

The argument really isn't nearly as simple as it sounds here.  There are many other issues at play, including the role of the free market in setting the price for Internet access, the right of a company to make a profit, and so on.  None of that gets us around the question of who will be next to pay if net neutrality is swept away.  It could be you

Founded in 1996, MacConnect is the first and largest Mac-Centric ISP on the planet. Providing world class hosting solutions that are as easy as your Mac, MacConnect is the first choice for any Mac user in need of web, email and application hosting. Find us online at MacConnect.com

Tags: Blogs ï All Things infrastructure ï