MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ross
Re: I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over
OK ross, let's compare what we just said.
Me:
quote:
I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc.
You:
quote:
incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.
I think we're saying exactly the same thing. I just said it in a more neutral statement-of-fact way. Network neutrality is about content/delivery companies trying to get the government to force the pipe/infrastructure companies to be "dumb pipes".
The difference is you are mixing up the statement of the situation with your POV on who's right. You assert:
quote:
The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information.
I'm wondering, when did those get to be "basic tenets"? I mean, obviously, from a technology point of view, the Internet is all about supporting multiple protocols on top of IP, and standards for interoperability of those protocols, and everything's just a packet. But, from a business point of view, I'm not so sure. |
