| I don't understand this I don't understand about this whole net neutrality thing. Is it a good or bad thing for broadband? What will neutrality do to broadband in this country? Will net neutrality send broadband straight to hell? |
|
 McSummationMmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
kudos:2 | What we have now is, more or less, neutral. |
|
| I don't understand what you mean by that. |
|
 spy1Welcome to AmerikaPremium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC | reply to floydb1982
»secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?id=535 or just read the thread I started about it here:
»www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···t=130713 (and all the links therefrom). Pete |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to floydb1982
One of the fundamental technical considerations in the design of the Internet is transparent end-to-end transport.
First-mile access providers would prefer a business model similar to what the Cablecos have. The access provider strikes business deals with various third parties to deliver a packaged deal to customers. Competitors/Non-partners are either left out completely or serviced at a technical disadvantage.
A good example from history is telephone common carriage. The telephone system was designed to carry voice. Then modems were invented allowing computers to talk to one another. First it was BBS system and later dialup ISPs providing Internet access. Telcos wanted to charge extra for data calls and charge by minute. The FCC refused. If it had not been for that ruling the Internet may have been much slower to develop.
Net Neutrality does not prevent service providers from offering differentiated services. What it attempts to do is make sure the customer remains in control over which packets get preferential treatment and which do not.
The owner of the road should not be in a position to decide who does and does not get to use it.
/tom |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | I completely agree (as I often do) with tschmidt's post.
However, I do sympathize a bit with the anti-Net Neutrality crowd in that this really isn't a problem yet, so why legislate it? It may be wise to head off the problem before it develops...but, on the other hand, should the Fed Gov be involved with 'proactive' legislation?
Why not wait until such a transgression occurs, then deal with it?
Perhaps the fear is once such a 'plan' is in place, it'll be impossible to stop? It'll catch on too quickly? Congressmen will have already been paid-off?
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
