"The latter group wants the option of charging customers more for transmitting certain content, including live video, faster or more reliably than other data."
... this is NOT what net-neutrality is - and this is a big misconception in how it is often presented - as specified in, for example, the Markey ammendment in the house ... net neutrality is NOT that you can't treat data differently based on data TYPE, rather you can non treat data differently based on the data SOURCE ... so, it's perfectly reasonable, based on these proposed net neutrality laws, to treat video and text differently within the network, for example; but it is not reasonable to treat video from the Richard Show differently from AT&T's TV channel ... the problem with the latter in terms of the negative impact on start ups, creativity, competition, and innovation in general is pretty self-evident to me ... as for how it would benefit consumers for AT&T, Sprint, or whoever, to determine whose content will be easy to access vs. whose will not ... and their decisions are all based on income to the company ... how's that going to help the consumer? ... definitely will NOT help anyone interested in independent/grass roots media ... I'm with you Heath on that, for sure ... Richard On 6/27/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like anyone here on this group didn't know this but look at the last > line from this article > > WASHINGTON - The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday urged > policymakers to proceed cautiously on any regulation of high-speed > Internet traffic. > > The agency issued a report addressing the controversial subject of > network neutrality, which is the notion that all online traffic > should be treated equally by Internet service providers. > > The issue pits consumer groups and content providers such as Google > Inc. against large telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Inc. > and Comcast Corp. The latter group wants the option of charging > customers more for transmitting certain content, including live > video, faster or more reliably than other data. > > FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that without evidence > of "market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers > should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this > area." The Federal Communications Commission and Department of > Justice have jurisdiction over high-speed Internet access, while > Congress has considered legislation that would mandate network > neutrality. > > The agency also said that certain practices that would discriminate > among Internet traffic, such as prioritizing some data or providing > exclusive deals to content providers, "can benefit consumers." > > "can benefit consumers".....my a$$..... > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > http://aroundcincinnati.net > > > -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
