Re: What Will Tiered Access Mean for NPOs?

From Tech Soup, June 14, 2006
> By Henry Kumagai > Imagine if your nonprofit had to pay a fee to your Internet service > provider in order for your Web site to turn up on search-engine > results. Or what if your constituents could only access your site on a > slower, more unreliable connection -- unless you made a higher monthly > payment to your ISP?

Actually, I thought that's how the world worked now. I see nothing wrong with it.

Since when do "non-profits" get a free ride?

The term "network neutrality" describes an Internet that does not > discriminate based on the content or source of information. It is just > as much an ideal as a practice: currently, users can go anywhere they > want on the Internet, with phone companies and cable providers > treating all traffic in a neutral manner.

No. Users can NOT go anywhere they want. I learned long ago to be very suspicious of new sites which may be fronts for scams -- gambling, p*rn, phishing, spyware, viruses, etc. It is NOT the ideal world these people claim it is.

The concept is similar to that of the common carriage provisions that > govern the telephone system in the United States, whereby phone calls > are treated with equal priority across a network, regardless of their > source or destination.

That once was true, but with VOIP, cell phones, and brand-x local and long distance carriers, it is no longer true.

Building an argument based on a utopia that doesn't exist is no way to win a debate or earn credibility for your side.

Sorry, but I can't help but suspect all these writers -- that describe the Internet in such warm and fuzzy terms -- have their own personal agenda. I submit since they write for technology journals, it is in their interest to promote and push technology, just as any other advocacy magazine would. In a race car magazine I would not expect to find an article touting streetcar service, but I know the race car magazine is for a specific purpose.

One of the very first questions we were taught years ago was: How (specifically) will the new technology make things better? What will be all the costs? Might it be better to stick with pencil and paper?

A lot of technocrats -- like the writers of techno magazines -- don't think in those terms. They assume immediately the newest features (for which we all must buy new computers and software to use) will improve our lives tremendously. (In a separate post I'll describe how an innocent man was branded a predator thanks to the Internet and ruined his life.)

In conclusion, making a solid established company the "gatekeeper" and putting up a few tollbooths might not be such a bad idea. Putting in some audit controls and audit trails may cut off some of the scams we're flooded with and spend so much money defending against.

[public replies, please]