how-to block ads
|
twoissues
@verizon.net
| Re: I agree 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. | |
| | | |
|
