Crying Net-Neutrality Wolf Real infringements are going to be hard to get away with We've already discussed how the hyperbole packed net-neutrality debate has led to multiple instances where users assumed ordinary outages were the result of providers doing something menacing. So far this year we've seen both a network issue between BellSouth and LLNW (LimeLight Networks) and a problem with Cox security software preventing Craigslist access - blamed on net neutrality infractions when there were less dramatic reasons for the problems. We again saw it yesterday, as a problem that prevented Comcast customers from accessing Google services was blamed by some forum regulars on network neutrality issues (Comcast ultimately said it was a DNS hardware issue). As Carlo over at Techdirt notes, this is probably a good thing: if customers are so sensitive to these issues when it's a false-alarm, how could any incumbent actually get away with blocking or impeding services? It's for this reason that many people who oppose incumbent blocking or de-prioritization of competing traffic don't think net-neutrality laws are necessary - though not for the same reasons as the "deregulate everything and Utopia cometh" crowd. The Internet community may just be able to effectively self-police on this issue, and legislation coined by individuals who don't understand how the Internet works could cause more harm than good.
|
 gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL | VOIP and Tampa I thought there was still an ISP down in Florida that was actively preventing Vonage Usage on their networks? | |
|  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Dumb Pipe Just give me a Dumb Pipe, I'll figure out what to do with it! | |
|  |  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Dumb Pipe said by dadkins:Just give me a Dumb Pipe, I'll figure out what to do with it! con
--
I have an imaginary friend, and his name is God. | |
| | | | If you had a dumb pipe you probably would not be reading this post. Some form of traffic shaping is needed to prevent lost packet jitter and so on. | |
|
 Vchat20Landing is the REAL challengePremium
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH | Very Well Put Very well put there. /IF/ the providers ever plan on doing any de-prioritizing of select services as per the original net-neutrality concern, those providers would get lots of heat not only by their customers which would ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot, but also the content providers whom they are de-prioritizing traffic for.
Would be like walking into a southern civil war re-enactment and screaming at the top of your lungs 'The north whooped your ass!'.
Disclaimer: I claim no particular side to the analogy posted above. It is merely used as an example to the original point.
--
I reject your reality and substitue my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbusters | |
|  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | It will be less obvious If the requirements of net neutrality are lifted, the violations of neutrality won't be as obvious as blocking popular sites altogether. It will come in gradually.
More like, the VOIP that competes with the ISP's VOIP doesn't work quite as well. And some FUD like "Youtube won't pay for its fair share!" from the ISP or its shills, followed by access to Youtube getting slower. Then charging customers extra fees for using Bittorrent, extra fees for using more than a certain amount of bandwidth to certain parts of the world, extra fees for iTunes if Apple won't pay, ISP-affiliated sites being faster than independent ones, and on and on. Nickel-and-dime, until customers get used to it. | |
| |
1 edit | Re: It will be less obvious See, I think that's something that might work but not with how you describe.
Use of that pipe costs money. Find out the average amount used in a month and then charge per MB or GB of use over that average amount.
The average user wont see a difference. High usage people can max that pipe all they want without a notice of bandwidth abuse at that point. You get the full amount of service you use and the company gets the costs covered.
Of course no one would like this idea because everyone assumes that they have unlimited use of services cause hardly anyone reads their TOS.
Oh well.
Edit: note that 'average in a month' would come from the bandwidth average from the user base over several years with the expected growth of use as we use the net more and more heavily.
--
If it's worth saying, it is worth saying politely | |
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It will be less obvious said by MrChupacabra:Use of that pipe costs money. Find out the average amount used in a month and then charge per MB or GB of use over that average amount. The average user wont see a difference. High usage people can max that pipe all they want without a notice of bandwidth abuse at that point. You get the full amount of service you use and the company gets the costs covered. Sooner or later, the cost per bit method, as you described above, will become the norm. It is the only way that continually increasing demands for bandwidth can be paid for.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
Sooner or later, the cost per bit method, as you described above, will become the norm.
You repeat this frequently, but I really don't think so, given it's such a drastic shift from what users are used to. If you start charging per-bit access to customers who are used to a flat fee for "unlimited" service, they'll flock to another provider (if possible) - even if that provider is promising unlimited and then imposing caps. They've opened a marketing door they can't just suddenly close.... | |
| | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: It will be less obvious You may be right, Karl.
On the other hand, we hear from the ISPs that "a few" heavy users "jam" the (underbuilt) network....
We may see ISP's begin to institute some very high level of service (i.e., high bit count) as the "basic" tier, so only the top 5-10% end up paying extra. Depending on the numbers, ISPs might be very happy to lose this 5-10% of their customer base to a competitor. Of course, such an approach would involve heavy marketing to the "desirable" customer base to show them that their costs wouldn't go up.
It's not a strict either/or situation. The ISPs really can "select out" their truly "unprofitable" customers, if, indeed, such a high usage set of customers exists.
This sort of "tiering" isn't all that uncommon--the cable guys have been doing a different form of it (counting channels instead of bits) for years....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |  qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by Karl Bode: You repeat this frequently, but I really don't think so, given it's such a drastic shift from what users are used to. If you start charging per-bit access to customers who are used to a flat fee for "unlimited" service, they'll flock to another provider (if possible) - even if that provider is promising unlimited and then imposing caps. They've opened a marketing door they can't just suddenly close.... The real question is why SHOULDN'T there be tiered service for ISPs?
Any other service whose product you consume, you pay by the amount you use. Electric, water, gas, heating oil, possibly local or long distance landline phone service, wireless service. Even with Cable or Satellite TV there are tiered levels of service.
--
“Teaching music is not in accordance with the Islamic establishment, and teaching music to schoolchildren brings corruption.” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Supreme Leader of Iran | |
| | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
The real question is why SHOULDN'T there be tiered service for ISPs?
How is that the real question?
This would be a solution for what problem exactly? The 1% of users cable providers claim actually consume too much bandwidth? They are countered by the massive swath who use a $45 connection to simply check e-mail.
quote:
Even with Cable or Satellite TV there are tiered levels of service.
They already exist for broadband. | |
| | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: It will be less obvious said by Karl Bode: They already exist for broadband. Yes, but only in one characteristic (raw Mb/sec capability--i.e, "pipe size").
At one time, some water utilities charged only by the size of the pipe connected to your home or business--but most have since switched to a metered "total gallons used" method.
Why do I continue to focus on this approach? Because it forces the ISPs to either "put up or shut up." Either they really are having problems caused by a small number of very heavy users (and yes, Karl, it may only be 1%) or they aren't. If they are having these problems, they can address it by usage tiers. If they aren't having such problems, they are just telling tales to try and justify extorting monies from the content providers.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
At one time, some water utilities charged only by the size of the pipe connected to your home or business--but most have since switched to a metered "total gallons used" method.
But water is an un-sexy utility, where nobody has a choice.
Broadband is a pseudo-competitive market (in some places), where a provider that suddenly charged by the bit would be absolutely murdered from a marketing perspective by the other providers.
I think this is a door we've walked through that can't be closed. | |
| | | | | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It will be less obvious said by Karl Bode: quote:
At one time, some water utilities charged only by the size of the pipe connected to your home or business--but most have since switched to a metered "total gallons used" method.
But water is an un-sexy utility, where nobody has a choice. Broadband is a pseudo-competitive market (in some places), where a provider that suddenly charged by the bit would be absolutely murdered from a marketing perspective by the other providers. I think this is a door we've walked through that can't be closed. If a net neutrality law is ever passed that constrains the pricing flexibility of the ISPs concerning content discrimination, then per bit pricing may be their preferred alternative pricing mechanism.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
If a net neutrality law is ever passed that constrains the pricing flexibility of the ISPs concerning content discrimination, then per bit pricing may be their preferred alternative pricing mechanism.
That doesn't make any sense. Net-neutrality laws aren't getting passed, anyway. But if they were, why would laws prohibiting the blocking or de-prioritization of competing content have anything to do with advocating per-bit pricing? I fail to see the connection. | |
| | | | | | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It will be less obvious said by Karl Bode: quote:
If a net neutrality law is ever passed that constrains the pricing flexibility of the ISPs concerning content discrimination, then per bit pricing may be their preferred alternative pricing mechanism.
That doesn't make any sense. Net-neutrality laws aren't getting passed, anyway. But if they were, why would laws prohibiting the blocking or de-prioritization of competing content have anything to do with advocating per-bit pricing? I fail to see the connection. The ISP's are going to get their revenue one way or another. If regulation cuts off 1 way(offloading some costs to content providers), then another way will be found to set prices based on where the costs are incurred. And if bandwidth hogs downloading huge videos is driving costs, then a pricing mechanism that can recover those costs from those causing them is likely. The per bit pricing method(after a cap is reached) is a way to charge that worst 1%.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
The ISP's are going to get their revenue one way or another.
This seems to forget they get paid now; and do rather well for themselves. The need to create entirely new profit models is simply the result of needing to impress investors with quarter to quarter to improvements. These new revenue systems aren't being advocated for because ISPs are suffering. I've not seen any evidence that the 1% of bandwidth gluttons are dragging down the industry's already very impressive revenues.
If it gets to the point where 40% of your customers are sucking down excessive bandwidth due to video consumption, raise the rates on your customers paying for 10-15Mbps pipes. Why impose per-cap charges and make yourself competitively vulnerable from a marketing perspective?
If Comcast tomorrow starting charging by the bit, AT&T would have ads out the next day proclaiming the brilliance of offering unlimited bandwdith... | |
| | | | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: It will be less obvious said by Karl Bode: Why impose per-cap charges and make yourself competitively vulnerable from a marketing perspective? Because it makes more sense than just terminating those customers who surpass your current "secret" cap on usage?
said by Karl Bode:If Comcast tomorrow starting charging by the bit, AT&T would have ads out the next day proclaiming the brilliance of offering unlimited bandwidth... It would depend on how the message was handled. If Comcast made a good argument that 98% of the people could get all they wanted in the base tier, and only 24/7 video freaks fell into the higher tiers, then all the 24/7 freaks would head for ATT. If they're really that disruptive/costly to serve, then Comcast should be happy to see them go. (And if the alternative is Comcast enforcing some "secret" cap, those folks are history anyway.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be less obvious quote:
Because it makes more sense than just terminating those customers who surpass your current "secret" cap on usage?
That's not really happening much anymore. It's not happening at all among DSL providers. It doesn't happen with Time Warner Cable, and even Comcast - last I heard - is sending out fewer of those letters.
I'm seeing it mostly from Verizon Wireless, and that at least makes sense because that's new and costly hardware.
quote:
If Comcast made a good argument that 98% of the people could get all they wanted in the base tier, and only 24/7 video freaks fell into the higher tiers, then all the 24/7 freaks would head for ATT.
If that's really the case that it's 2% of the customer base - they'd probably be better off from a business perspective doing what they do know - keeping a hidden monthly allotment and disciplining only customers who consume egregious amounts of bandwidth.
I'm still not seeing any reasonable need for charging by the bit.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by calvoiper:said by Karl Bode: They already exist for broadband. Yes, but only in one characteristic (raw Mb/sec capability--i.e, "pipe size"). And, dish network and directTV, to use two companies you used as an example, only have tiers in one characterisitic (channels activated on your receiver.). | |
| | | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: It will be less obvious Yes, but neither Dish nor DirectTV are making any claims that more intensive use of their product increases their costs.
The ISPs are making that claim. They have the opportunity to charge (or chase away) that "unprofitable" 24/7 downloader right now. Apparently, some of them are using a "secret cap" method to chase those customers away. Aside from not liking "secret" limits on usage, it baffles me why they would want to cut off a customer rather than charge him more for his intensive usage.
Yes, a "high usage" tier might chase customers off--but that is exactly what some cable operators are doing with a cap at X gigabytes....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Linklist:Sooner or later, the cost per bit method, as you described above, will become the norm. It is the only way that continually increasing demands for bandwidth can be paid for. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless the pace of innovation slows down OR the telcos and cablecos are slow to deploy better technology (ie, more capacity and faster speeds).
Innovation will not stop, it will just shift to other countries that have real broadband, like it already has to some extent.
The phone companies say they need a new source of revenue to pay for upgrades, so they have to have a tiered network, or as you suggest, charge by the bit. But if they actually used that revenune to upgrade the network to the latest technology they would no longer need to have tiered networks or charge by the bit.
To make this business model work, it means they don't upgrade until they start having capacity problems (in the meantime extracting monopoly profits), so there is always the excuse to keep charging so they can upgrade (look how clogged the pipes are getting!). If they do upgrade to the extent possible, they just artificially throttle capacity (in the meantime extracting monopoly profits).
And what that means is the U.S. keeps getting further and further behind the rest of the world where competition exists. | |
| | | | |  ONiallYum, CitizenPremium
join:2002-11-18
Portland, OR | Re: It will be less obvious i agree that unless there is a radical shift in the carriers' business models, then we will run into an issue where they bring about tiered services. without tiered services, the carriers that do not improve their local node capacities, or their backbones, will see increased congestion. without tiered services, the market would likely force them to accept a decline in profit margin in order to build out their infrastructure, or face the loss of customers not happy with their services.
with tiered services, the carriers have the opportunity to delay upgrades, and use quality of service measures to manage traffic flow.
we as customers can, if choice allows, move to a carrier with higher capacity and no tiered services, signaling to the carriers that we prefer one over the other, or create one ourselves...
...but we face millions of dollars in corporate spending to lobby for legislation, to create false impressions on the very nature of the service we purchase, and to continue the system of the carrier making as much from their product as possible.
free market is what that is...and should be allowed to be. but i am unhappy with those we have elected into government position that play along with manipulation and deception. they fail to live up to their sworn duties. any member of public office who has responsibility for oversight of, or takes an interest in, this form of technology, should have a deep understanding of the nature of it. and they should be pushing to bring the truth to their citizens...who are in their own way just as responsible for being an educated consumer, and should not rely upon capitalist interests to sell them what is best for them.
--
i drink with bears for weekend carnivals. | |
| | | | |  ABPremium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by nasadude:. . The phone companies say they need a new source of revenue to pay for upgrades, so they have to have a tiered network, or as you suggest, charge by the bit. But if they actually used that revenune to upgrade the network to the latest technology they would no longer need to have tiered networks or charge by the bit. To make this business model work, it means they don't upgrade until they start having capacity problems (in the meantime extracting monopoly profits), so there is always the excuse to keep charging so they can upgrade (look how clogged the pipes are getting!). If they do upgrade to the extent possible, they just artificially throttle capacity (in the meantime extracting monopoly profits). I don't doubt that what you say may well be entirely correct. But here's the deal-- nobody asked them to get in on providing internet service, they got themselves in on it, because they desperately wanted a piece of the action. It could just as easily have been the electric company, the gas company, or, what in the best of all possible worlds would be the case- a separate, independent entity whose sole purpose is to provide broadband service.
Don't demand to be put in the game, then complain that the pitcher throws too fast, is the way I look at it. | |
|
| | swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Net neutrality is not an issue of bandwidth or transfer amounts. That's a pretext. The issue is discrimination by where traffic is going or what kind of traffic it is.
Charging more for more traffic is not a violation of net neutrality. It's not even controversial, it is normal. Currently it is in tiers, residential vs. business for example; but it could be by GB or some other method. Flat-rate has prevailed because customers like it and dislike per-unit rates, but this is something for the market to decide.
Net neutrality issue is about traffic discrimination. Anti-neutrality is the idea that the ISP should be allowed to (a) charge differently for different protocols (web vs. VOIP for example) or by origin or destination of the traffic (Google vs. MSN , for example); or (b) establish slow lanes or fast lanes according to type of traffic or where it's going. (They talk about creating a "fast lane" and deceptively try to imply that it won't hurt anything else, but technically the only way to do that is by dropping packets of anything other than the priority traffic.) | |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | No free lunch. The net is quickly becoming a provider of video and soon HD video. The 24/7 all you can eat can not handle that. There will have to be caps like CATV providers are now implementing. There will have to be a limit on the amount of bandwidth a subscriber can use a month like they have in many countries. There will have to be metered service like with electric or gas. Or there will have to be higher prices for all 24/7 all you can eat broadband.
Or Microsoft and all of the others will have to pay more to flood the tubes with all of the sticky HD video.
Someone must pay; of course all of the *FREE Muni WIFI* would be more then happy to let Microsoft flood the tubes with sticky HD Video. | |
| |  Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: No free lunch. said by batterup:Or Microsoft and all of the others will have to pay more to flood the tubes with all of the sticky HD video. Someone must pay; of course all of the *FREE Muni WIFI* would be more then happy to let Microsoft flood the tubes with sticky HD Video. I don't think anyone ever thought they shouldn't pay, possibly even more, to provide this stuff. It's the pay to prioritize that gets people worked up. They already pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. Adding more content will cause them to purchase more bandwidth, and that alone will provide increased earnings for the carriers. If there are then further normal price increases, whether across the board for all levels of bandwidth purchased or for certain tiers, then there is even further gains for the carriers. Now the ISP's have their money, and no one is worrying about who's getting priority over who. Some complaints about increased prices, sure, but not increased prices and possible lower priorities for certain content. | |
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: No free lunch. said by Jodokast96: I don't think anyone ever thought they shouldn't pay, possibly even more, to provide this stuff. It's the pay to prioritize that gets people worked up. They already pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. They pay their bandwidth provider that is usually themselves. They pay nothing to the last mile provider. The last mile is the expensive mile and requires the most maintenance. If I am going to pay billions to deploy last mile I have to make money or the stockholders throw me out.
To deploy the last mile providers have to lick the toes of every local politician. Microsoft can shove there HD Video down the Tubes and don't have to ask or bribe anyone.
If you think it is difficult it catch the Oil companies gouging US wait until you try to catch Tube providers. Server broke, sorry. Tube clogged with HD Video sorry. We need more money to add nodes, every body pays even if you don't watch HD port.
I don't watch video over my PC and I don't want to pay for it. | |
| | | | swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
2 edits | Re: No free lunch. The idea that ISPs need to demand surcharges from remote parties to pay for their last-mile costs is complete rubbish. The last mile costs can be fully covered by the local customers who are on that last mile. If some of them use more transfer than others, there's nothing wrong with making those heavy users pay more. This already happens with the transfer caps. It is controversial because it contradicts the "unlimited" advertising, but it is not a net neutrality issue. The ISP could charge less for people like you who don't use big-bandwidth apps and there would be no violation of net neutrality.
If the big ISPs can get away with demanding fees from remote sites to refrain from downgrading their services (this is called a "protection racket" when the mafia does it to legitimate businesses), it would never save you a cent anyway. They would just show better profits for the investors and never reduce any customer's rates.
Nor does it cause a net gain for customers: the better delivery for one is offset by worse delivery for another. The customers who happen to like the ISP's favorites are unfairly advantaged and those who don't are unfairly disadvantaged. Only the ISP's investors make a sure gain - like the highway robbers who demanded ransom to let travelers pass safely, before the spread of law and order stamped out that predatory practice.
It's also harmful to the whole economy. If a customer prefers to get video or VOIP or whatever from provider "A" instead of "B", but "B" has paid the extortion to the ISP and "A" hasn't, then the market is distorted: demand for A's service is suppressed and demand for B's is inflated.
In addition, the customer, who has little or no choice of ISP, is denied the right to choose A or B based on their merits; instead the quality of service he can get from them is artificially skewed by the highway robber whos stands in the road, collecting ransom from one and not the other.
Charging for bandwith or transfer used is fine. But the ISPs must not be allowed to intervene in the content of traffic or interfere with transactions between net users and remote sites. | |
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: No free lunch. said by swhx7:Charging for bandwith or transfer used is fine. But the ISPs must not be allowed to intervene in the content of traffic or interfere with transactions between net users and remote sites. Fine when your VOiP get stuck behind pron filled tubs don't bitch accept it. | |
|
Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | What about the FUSF? The thing that keeps me from believing that it can police itself is what do you do when every ISP does it? If you can't threaten to go with another ISP, you have no way to apply pressure without giving up access completely. Just look at what happened with the FUSF recently for DSL users. It went away, but they were still going to try to charge us for it, except now they were gonna keep the money (even though they pretty much did already). Until the FCC made a stink about it, not one of those providers were gonna stop charging just because we complained, because in that case the alternative was even more expensive cable. Yeah, I did jump in pretty quick on the Google thing with a net neutrality comment, but it was clearly nothing more than a jab about future possibilities. And do you think Comcast even cared about it one bit? No way because they all know once one does it, the rest will follow, so they won't lose any customers. | |
| | | always like this "legislation coined by individuals who don't understand how the Internet works could cause more harm than good"
Replace the words 'the Internet' with just about anything and you've discovered the reason why deregulation is so popular. There's nothing wrong with good regulations but they seem to be in short supply.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
| | | net neutrality and medicine A great post! The ever growing internet community has a louder voice than any regulations do when it comes to protecting the consumer. Furthermore, I wanted to share this article on telemedicine and net neutrality by Vanessa McLaughlin at Providea Inc.
said by Vanessa :
Net neutrality advocates say every bit of Internet traffic should be treated alike. But that makes as much sense as an emergency room that eliminates triage and treats a broken nose with the same urgency as a heart attack. In an ER, some cases are more critical. On the Internet, some bits of data are more important. Medical data needs to get where it’s going fast and safe. If an e-mail or music video is delayed by a traffic jam on the network, the damage is minimal. If a medical transmission is disrupted, someone could die.
I work with Hands Off The Internet and Vanessa’s column makes it very clear there is more to this net neutrality debate than most realize. More information is available at »handsoff.org.
»www.journal-news.net/columns/art···eID=3935 | |
|
| |
|
|
