As we approach the middle of the year 2011, it is clear that their are two incompatible pushes to influence the future of the internet. I am talking about the conflict between those trying to influence the user by controlling their pipe, and those trying to influence the user by controlling the end content.
One movement seeks to use the power granted to them by subsidies, profits from old, dieing technologies and the inherited physical telecommunication lines to influence consumer choice. The other seeks, simply, to influence consumer choice by producing a superior product.
Internet caps, with the possible exception of the most 'generous', are a means to this end. What sane consumer, today, would choose to pay something like 40 dollars for an outdated 'cable television' service, if the restrictions imposed, often by cable internet companies, on the distribution of media and bandwidth.
In the USA, where the bandwidth caps have historically been high, and media rights have begun to be licensed more rationally, we have seen the rise of Netflix's online media distribution.
When Netflix announced its move to Canada, Bell Canada, a media distributer, and one of the major Internet providers in Canada, imposed major bandwidth limitations on its customers and downstream providers. It was only through mass grassroots action that this was blocked. This is the conflict, between new and old media, between net neutrality, and net blockades.
During this time, Netflix did not try to fight legal battles or lobby for a solution, they simply improved their product by adding a lower bandwidth option for their consumers.
I think it is clear where the consumer should stand, when the choice is between suppression tactics and superior services.
by Internet Cap Gate.
No comments:
Post a Comment