Let me first say in advance that this thread will be slightly political in nature. Please, please , please, refrain from spamming and flaming. Lets have a rational, respectful discussion and not let this degenerate into a shouting match over who`s favored political ideology is superior. Second this issue primarily effect those living in the US, but I still welcome input from anyone who has something to add.
Up until recently, the internet has had what is commonly refered to as `Net Neutrality`. It is the same basic principle that governers railroads, shipping, ect. Namely, that compnies that run these services are required to treat all their customers equally, it is illegal for them to charge differnt rates to different customers. If citezens in the US are not vigalent, the internet could those that protection very soon.
Here is the situation: The large telecom companies (AT&T, Verizon, SBC, Sprint, ect) want to have a system that allows them to `fast track` certian packets, while the rest of the net chiggs along at standard speed. It is essentialy a `fast lane` in the internet that companies can access by paying a premium fee to the telecom company.
While this doesn`t sound that bad on the surface, here is the catch: the decision about who gets access to this fast lane and how much each of them pays is entirely up to the telecom company. So lets say for example that SBC (who has a business partnership with yahoo) decides to cut yahoo a special deal on prices. Yahoo now has a major advantage, since all thier competitors like google have to pay a higher rate. Pretty soon Yahoo drives the rest of its competitors out and creates a monoply.
Not only could this happen in the future, it has happend in our past. At one time, Rairoad companies charged more favorable rates to shpipers whom thier owner had a stake in. By doing this, the railroad owners could create monoplies where everything from raw material to factory, to finished good was owned by one man.
K
KusariOP