An ad sponsoring the local news this evening asked television viewers to act in opposition to the Snowe-Dorgan “Internet Freedom Preservation” bill (Net Neutrality). The ad included a web address (http://www.handsoff.org/). Senator Dorgan is from ND, but this ad may be airing everywhere.
My previous post in support of the concept of net neutrality focused on an issue that the “hands off” site describes as “access tiering” – a practice in which network owners charge more for certain services or control the speed of a category of informtion packets.
I understand the issue of access tiering, but I am attempting to understand the competing position. Is it that the providers are claiming they need new revenue opportunities to encourage development of an enhanced net? What is unclear to me is whether new revenue opportunities would imply that existing user opportunities would go away? For example, would a VOIP channel without “break ups” be added if “free” Skype audio communication can be degraded or would a VOIP channel be available for a fee and Skype would continue be available for those willing to tolerate the service as is?
