how-to block ads
|
NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: I agree Net Neutrality? Ha! And excatly what does net Neutraility get us? A fast lane we have to pay more for? As people in the slow lane suffer, because they can't get anything faster? Net neutrality doesn't solve anything. If anything it creates more problems.
--
The revolution will be televised! | |
|  chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA | Re: I agree What are you talking about!!! There is no two lanes in the Net Neutrality, is all the same,is what we enjoy today.
You are watching to many telecom commercials and getting confused, it seem that their campaing is working! | |
| 
twoissues
@verizon.net
| Don't confuse the two issues... you can't make net-neutrality a universal service fund mandate upon telcos. On the other hand, you can't allow telcos to shake-down would-be content resellers for the broadband interconnect (peering). If content providers share costs of interconnect- that is acceptable, however if these arrangement can't be made amicably, well you have issues of fairness arise where a content provider could be shut out of a network (or not be allowed enough bandwidth to run their business), and customers lose faith in the isp as well (affecting both pricing and marketshare, ie 100 megabits to nowhere fast) so it really would be a lose-lose situation.
Content provider NEED to build/rent/lease their own fiber farms to reasonable interconnect as bandwidth transmission still costs "REAL MONEY" and there are NO ARPA-NET national science foundation superfunds supporting the infrastructure anymore, only the framework upon which it was handed over to isps.
If there were billions in investment and we say went through a fiber buildout boom and bust, these facilities could be scooped up for pennies on the dollar out of bankrupcy (hint-hint, cough cough, emm see eye) then there would be plenty of resources to 'go round' as the fibers can do a much better job than your dad's fiber network of 15 years ago. (40-120 gigabits per fibre channel symmetric).
BTW, telcos seem to own too much of the nation's fiber, and we need NEW 3rd party investment in 2007 ipv6 fiber deployments and signaling. Otherwise we will see sub-adequate bottlenecks on parts of the internet which max out and get oversold for the demand on content. | |
| | 
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: I agree "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than pointless competition stifling, government regulation.
Let the telco's dig their own hole with their "two tiered Internet" bologna in a truly competitive market. | |
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Ummm, net-neutrality is the abscence of a paid for fast and slow lane. You've got it backwards.
Presently there is no net-neutrality and the service providers can "try" to charge whatever they want to content providers they don't serve.
If there were competition in the industry that strategy would put them right out of business.. but since there isn't, we need a law. | |
| | | |
|
