TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to tsu
Re: If anyone can do it...
said by tsu  :As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'.
You can bet the 'net fast-lanes' costs will be passed down to consumers. So, yes, we'll be paying for that, too. The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
That would, of course, be a matter of opinion. It could be seen the opposite, depending on how you believe things will work. |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. You are either misrepresenting this or have no idea what net neutrality is about. It has nothing to do with providing more or less bandwidth to the consumer.said by TK Junk Mail :This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. Please expalin to me how network neutrality has anything to do with how a content provider will make more or less money. Which pie is it you are cutting up?said by TK Junk Mail :So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers. How can giving network providers control over the content traveling on their networks be GOOD for anyone but the network providers? Tell me what consumer benefits I will gain by letting the telcos determine which sites are more responsive than others? Or which content I can view? Or which VoIP provider I can use? I don't understand your reasoning at all. |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to TK Junk Mail
You seem to view the internet as a place where we are all consumers and a small handful of companies are isp and a small handful are content providers.
But the content providers are everywhere. This is the transformation that the internet has produced. BBR is a content provider. You and I are content providers. Bloggers and tech sites are content providers. You are probably smirking on hearing this, but you spend a lot of time here at BBR, so you apparently attribute some value to this content relative to say traditional copyrighted entertainment content.
The content providers should get the pie that they create. The telcos provide a communications service and they should be compensated for this, but it doesn't give them a right to the pie. If your phone company demanded a cut of your profits when you called your broker, because you used their network to make the call, you would tell them to go F themselves. If they tried to demand a cut of the money made from a sale when someone ordered a pizza over the phone the pizza business would tell them to piss off. Their owning of the network doesn't give them any right to a piece of the business activity that happens over that network. It only gives them a right to be compensated for the communications service they provide.
If the telcos want to provide a video service over their network let them separate out that bandwidth and provide video, like the cable company does. The cable company doesn't mix up their video service and their internet access. If they are allowed to mix that traffic up with internet traffic and then implement quality of service to subvert transport of competitive applications and content and give advantage to their own services, what they are providing is no longer an internet access service. If the public is hostage to their behavior because it has few other places to go for internet service, then the state should proactively act to either build out a public infrastructure or create conditions that enforce a competitive environment through some combination of things such as divestiture, spectrum reform, public/private partnerships with companies other than the telcos/cablecos. |
|
