jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | First Amendment does not apply to private property This bill would apply to ALL Internet providers -- not just the big incumbent telcos. What right does government have to regulate the little guys -- like superWISP -- who've built their own networks from scratch with no government money or special treatment? How is it fair to dictate to an entrepreneur what kind of prices and QoS provisions he can offer? The Free Press "What's Yours Is Mine" mentality is anti-freedom, anti-innovation, and anti-entrepreneurial.
Neutrality's great, don't get me wrong -- but it's not the end-all, be-all of networks. Even today, private fiber networks are being built around the globe to augment the Internet. And the Internet is hardly neutral as it is -- the big players that can afford edge caching have a leg up over other, smaller players. Should we force all Internet companies to be equal? |
|
| Cry me a river.....this should actually benefit the smaller carriers, this way they won't have to packet monitor for the RIAA!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to jaminus
So far the complaints about network neutrality have all been aimed at the telcos/MSOs. Though you're right in saying that the legislation is a blunt sword when it comes to smaller, built-from-the-ground-up entities, it appears as though the utilitarian concept is wht's at work here (greatest good for the greatest number).
Now if the feds pushed legislation to cap middle mile fees to $XX per Mbit, then the WISPs would owe them something... |
|
| reply to S_engineer
"this should actually benefit the smaller carriers"
I can see the opposite for small providers like wISPs. Take someone like AT&T competing against a small wireless operator. It's no big deal for Ilec to increase capacity with little cost to themselves while the cost for a wISP to increase capacity is often very expensive. It's even worse when they have no choice to but to buy increased capacity from the iLEC. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | That really doesn't have anything to do with neutrality. Neutrality isn't about one ISP having more capacity than another at all. |
|
| It is when you are a small op tying to serve customers with limited resources. If you are told you must allow something like P2P over a very limited resource a single P2P user can put you out of business. |
|
|
|
