Monday, August 9, 2010

Google and Verizon close in on deal to end 'net neutrality'

Bandwidth-hungry applications such as video conferencing are the future of the web: Google and Verizon look to be setting up a 'premium rate' internet to keep those applications separate.Search engine giant Google and U.S. telecoms company Verizon are finalising a deal that could spell the end for 'net neutrality'.

Under the current system of internet neutrality any one packet of data commands the same right to bandwidth as any other.

That means a Skype video conference has as much chance of a speedy connection as a Google search, regular email traffic or a BBC iPlayer broadcast.

If the rules are changed, certain types of data could buy a 'first class ticket' ensuring priority access and faster speeds...


What is 'net neutrality' ?


It's the assertion that anyone's data is as important as anyone else's. The original concept lies in the 1860 Pacific Telegraph Act, which established similar rules for early transcontinental telegraph communications in the USA.


What will this deal cost the average consumer?


Too soon to say, and costs would likely be buried in a monthly fee. As a guide, one hour of iPlayer use is said to generate an overhead of around 67p.

Will it make my internet access faster?


Basic browsing should be unaffected. If a deal were to be reached it should mean shorter load times an less 'choking' on streaming video services.

Can I buy some of this 'first class internet' ?


The deals will be done at ISP level. You can pay for more overall monthly bandwidth already, but switching tiers on-the-fly will be your ISP's prerogative, not yours.



via Google and Verizon close in on deal to end 'net neutrality' | Mail Online.

Lame. Let's build our own wireless massive encrypted peer-to-peer Internet and bypass the ISPs!! TOR 2.0 or something.

1 comment:

Ann said...

More practical, sign the petition going around the net to stop the madness. Get political about this!

By the way, doesn't the internet belongs to "us" in the first place? Wasn't the initial research paid by our tax money?