The United States doesn’t have the fastest Internet service— it’s ranked 12th in the world. The most influential nation, the most powerful and it’s ranked 12th; and they don’t have the best service… other countries have already embraced the Internet, more than the United States and recognized the importance of it.
And this isn’t limited to just desktop PC’s and home access; this is Smartphone providers as well… wireless carriers.
The freedom of the Internet is declining everyday; this is evident with the ‘Net Neutrality’ bill that has such great debate. Everything from Google censoring content to ISP’s limiting, censoring and recently injecting ads in to pages that don’t have any…
I believe the problem with most ISP’s is that they know how important Internet access is, they’re just attempting to find a way to ‘tap’ that resource for everything it’s worth.
The sad fact is, our Internet networks are so bad and the demand is so high for media content over the Internet that the ISP’s can’t handle the traffic— they just can’t handle it. So, the natural response to this is to limit what you can and can’t do. If you use the service to much, they limit you, or they ban you.
In addition, to the banning and the limitations; they have their latest goldmine— reverting back to mid 1990’s, the Internet providers are now charging for tiered Internet service. This is limiting how much information you can take in… this is a preamble to deciding that YouTube and/or Netflix is a premium service, a service you’d have to pay extra for.
From a position of a person who’s working remotely, or someone who’s going to school via the Internet this gets worse. The content that these services require, video, music, graphics, VPN and others; all this takes bandwidth. The Internet providers are doing nothing more than reclassifying Internet service as a commodity like gas, or any other fuel. And what if they were to break down to a level of if you want to use a VPN, like some ISP’s already do…
But one of the bigger travesties is a story that was recently posted about Mediacom Communications injecting their OWN ads in to webpages. What gives them the right to inject content in to a website, or in to the users experience as they browse the web?
I believe most users already think that any adverts, in the wrong place, can hurt a website very badly. Getting traffic to a website to begin with isn’t an easy task, but to have that 1st experience smeared by some obtuse cow deciding to put ads on a page where they’re not supposed to be is a horrifying thought. You could possibly lose that customer right there, right then; never to return.
And back on the issue Net Neutrality, the United States government is so corrupt on any issues of law, you might as well say that whoever finances the bill will get it done; the way they want it. And lobbyist from the Internet companies have been ‘doing’ our representatives for a long time— the idea that we’re going to get anything that’s remotely fair out of Net Neutrality will be impressive.
The only politician that seems to be giving a damn, is Al Franken. Apparently, a person, a comedian and a politician, in that order. But considering he’s not a career politician and the other career politicians don’t take him seriously, his points and views are barely even considered.
The more these structures are put in place, the worse the Internet gets.
The future of radio, TV, education, business and so on; these are all things that are in jeopardy. And the problem really is money… who’s going to make the most money off of abstracting the slowing, limiting and tiering service on/to the Internet?
I don’t know, but it’s not going to be in the customers favor.
Larry Henry Jr.