It will depend on the market
Doc Searls notes the rejection of "net neutrality" legislation, and ponders what's next:
Now that the NN bus has crashed, maybe we can get together and think of better strategies - and not just political ones - to build the Net we want, while preserving the best of what we already have.
I'm not that worried. At the consumer side, there's already a set of tiers, depending on what you are willing to pay for. In my area, there's everything from dialup to 30mbps down, 5 mbps up FIOS. prices range from $15/month on the low end, up to $180/month on the high end. This is far more choice than I had just a few years ago, btw, and it's all coming via the dreaded carriers.
It's also tiered service - not everyone has the same internet experience, which is a lot like everything else. Not everyone enjoys HD TV, either. The reality is, things are improving in the direction we want, without some overriding governmental control. Heck, a few years back, the corporate grade connection into our engineering office in California was a T1 - which offered symmetric 1.5 mbps. I can now buy better than that for my own use.
I'm not really worried about a one way set of tracks being erected - that's not the direction things have been going, and I seriously doubt that they'll start going that way.
Update: Doc updated his post to reflect his (lack of) choices where he lives. The thing is, internet service is no different than any other product - you get more and better choices in some areas, and fewer in others. Internet service just isn't going to be magically universal and better than other things.
Comments
Finally - a reasonable opinion
[Mousky] June 11, 2006 9:19:03.485
I have been following the net neutrality discussion on TechDirt and digg and for the most part, it has been a dismal failure. Many of the people in support of net neutrality legislation are the same people who complain that the government screwing up other aspects of the telecommunications sector. In particular, these people bring up the fact that the government gave the telcos money to increase broadband penetration and speeds when in reality the telcos haven't and the fact that some markets have little competition.
Many net neutrality supporters like to cite savetheinternet.org as a source of information. Unfortunately, savetheinternet is nothing more than a public voice for a number of very large corporations. Further, the four examples it cites in favour of net neutrality legislation are minor in nature. Most could be handled under existing contract law. savetheinternet.org has yet to cite a major example of an ISP 'destroying' net neutrality. If there was a net neutrality crisis, surely there should be some headline grabbing examples?
Net neutrality has nothing to do with local competition. Nor should it be used to 'punish' the telcos - two wrongs never ever make a right. I've mentioned in other discussions, that despite all the hot air from certain ISPs and telcos, net neutrality will prevail because it is a sound business decision. If net neutrality legislation was approved, I can guarantee that the ISPs and telcos would begin charging a 'net neutrality fee' - they would argue that there is a cost associated to providing net neutrality and that cost should be borne directly by the customer.