| Mind absent commentators Both the Kerpen and the Swanson are essentially gibberish, because neither understands the physical structure of the Net. Both argue against "Net Neutrality" based on possible demand on the backbone. Besides their likely exaggeration of backbone demand, this has nothing to do with NN, in principle or as specifically defined in the AT&T/BellSouth merger agreement. That deals with the provider network (AT&T's DSL and backhaul to the Internet), specifically not covering the backbone. This makes sense today, because there are half a dozen backbone carriers competing while only one path to the 10M AT&T DSL customers, a monopoly by AT&T. (Similar to the Comcast or Verizon customers - you can only reach them through their carrier.
There are reasonable arguments against government action on NN, including the common wisdom that governments often screw things up if involved. But using backbone congestion as an argument about what to do on the non-backbone part of the network is simply ignorance.
Dave Burstein
DSL Prime
|
