The "net neutrality" debate

[mouser]

...
The "net neutrality" debate has reached a fever pitch as Congress mulls legislation that would allow Internet service providers to charge Web sites for preferred delivery of digital content.
...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114839410026160648-M3wlxcUPk357fsGiHNM3BsUiCKY_20060622.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

from digg technology

[JavaJones]

After seeing "Thank You For Smoking", I am even more cynical about what people like McCurry say. Sure what he's saying sounds ok, but from everything I've read *outside of him as a source*, what the telecoms are trying to do really isn't a good thing for a lot of us. Average Joe and Jane might not notice or care, especially if they get premium services out of the deal, but sites like this and people like me who run online 'net projects on a shoestring budget will definitely notice.

Ultimately I don't understand why the same model that today governs high bandwidth use (charging high bandwidth users more for their accounts) can't work in the future. Ok so the providers are going to expand capacity - anyone who uses that capacity can then pay more to use it. Want to download movies? Pay a premium price for enough bandwidth to do it comfortably. McCurry says there shouldn't be a universal Internet tax for this, sure, but there shouldn't be a blanket change in policy either. It seems fair already. And let's be honest, if the group McCurry represents really wanted to "keep things as they are" say they say, then why are the lobbying so heavily, why are their bills being introduced that they support? That doesn't sound like "keeping things as they are" to me.

- Oshyan