I'm a big fan of net neutrality and, while I usually oppose government involvement, this is one area where I think that it's beneficial.
It's a shame something similar can't be done with TV channels...as a hockey fan who subscribes to DirecTV, I've been without the Versus channel (which carries several NHL games) since the beginning of the year. This is because Comcast...a bitter rival of DirecTV...owns the channel and, presumably, is attempting to charge DirecTV an arm and a leg for it. The same goes for many DirecTV sports fans in the Philadelphia market who cannot watch Phillies or Flyers games because they run on Comcast channels. Likewise, DirecTV is just as guilty for owning exclusive rights to out-of-market NFL games, meaning that if you're a NJ-based Raiders fan such as myself, you need to subscribe to DirecTV to watch them.
Violations against network neutraility these days tend to be more subtle and insidious than complete lack of access. They involve such things as de-prioritizing certain traffic such that service times are unacceptably long (or demanding that content sites pay apremium so that traffic speeds to and from them is not slowed).
jammer(six)
· 1 month ago
So where do things like ESPN360 fit in? This is a sports streaming website that is freely available to people with certain ISPs. Under this model, the ISP pays for access and then makes the service available to their subscribers.
Smithee
· 1 month ago
That's interesting, and annoying. Personally, I'm tempted to e-mail my ISP and ask them to reduce whatever portion of my monthly bill goes toward their fee for including it, since I will never use it.
But I do also sympathize with people who aren't allowed to access it (more here: link)
MLR
· 1 month ago
Imagining a net without neutrality is scary.
Consumerist? Sorry, Verizon and Comcast are limiting traffic to your site because you are bad for their business.
Pft, keep your hands off my internet.
Brandon Barkley
· 1 month ago
I don't think it needs to be legislated to be quite honest. The world wide web has existed for over 15 years without serious infractions. I don't think that companies will be stupid enough to try to move in the other direction. They will most definitely lose customers that way.
All Comments
It's a shame something similar can't be done with TV channels...as a hockey fan who subscribes to DirecTV, I've been without the Versus channel (which carries several NHL games) since the beginning of the year. This is because Comcast...a bitter rival of DirecTV...owns the channel and, presumably, is attempting to charge DirecTV an arm and a leg for it. The same goes for many DirecTV sports fans in the Philadelphia market who cannot watch Phillies or Flyers games because they run on Comcast channels. Likewise, DirecTV is just as guilty for owning exclusive rights to out-of-market NFL games, meaning that if you're a NJ-based Raiders fan such as myself, you need to subscribe to DirecTV to watch them.
complete lack of access. They involve such things as de-prioritizing certain traffic such that service times are unacceptably long (or demanding that content sites pay apremium so that traffic speeds to and from them is not slowed).
But I do also sympathize with people who aren't allowed to access it (more here: link)
Consumerist? Sorry, Verizon and Comcast are limiting traffic to your site because you are bad for their business.
Pft, keep your hands off my internet.