Excellent post Richard. I didn't realize some net neutrality bills being pushed allowed for that.
Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Pat, > > I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to > be "smart" and take into account different data types and route/shape > accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally > conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that. > > Here's the deal/misunderstanding. > > According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one > specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can > totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type - > they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for > example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me). > > About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has > a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, > gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another), > then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups > with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen > this > a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY > curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl > companies > do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. > So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the > lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building > them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). > Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building > lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable > and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of > ISP > if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial > up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely > one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US > compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you > have a service monopoly on the lines already built. > > ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what "network > neutrality" is, and why it came into being ... Richard > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage > > has increased by 40% each year. > > > > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in > > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire > > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of > > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. > > > > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are > > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to > > offer a solution to these issues. > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<tim%40frenchmaidtv.com>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry about that. > > > > > > Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html > > > > > > > > > Tim Street > > > Creator/Executive Producer > > > French Maid TV > > > Subscribe for FREE @ > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > > > MyBlog > > > http://1timstreet.com > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: > > > > > > > that url doesnt work for me. > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<tim%40frenchmaidtv.com>> > > > wrote: > > > > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts > > > > > > > > > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal > > > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim Street > > > > > Creator/Executive Producer > > > > > French Maid TV > > > > > Subscribe for FREE @ > > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > > > > > MyBlog > > > > > http://1timstreet.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Richard > http://richardhhall.org > Shows > http://richardshow.org > http://inspiredhealing.tv > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
