You're wrong, again, Jim.
Content providers (who are only 1 aspect of people who provide
information/service on the net) already pay for their pipe. AT&T and
Verizon's concept of freedom isn't freedom at all. Its double
taxation. You would have a content provider pay for their bandwidth
in exactly the same way that a consumer does (these relationships
between backbone providers and ISPs are similar regardless of the
direction of bitflow, and then PAY AGAIN just to get their bits to be
carried at some point further downstream, which they've already paid
for when they paid their ISP (who pays THEIR backbone provider).
This is discrimination of the worst kind.
Furthermore, backbone prioritization has the effect of REDUCING the
speed of organizations that don't pay up.
In addition, this amounts to unfair marketpower, since the backbone
provider wouldn't be able to exert such directed market pressures if
they weren't leveraging US, their monopolized end users.
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422
Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
On Apr 21, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
Max,
OK,then I don't see any conflict with some of the proposals coming
from AT&T and Verizon with this concept of freedom. Consumers will
still be
able to access any content on the Internet as long as they pay for
access.
Content providers will still be able to provide content as long as
they pay
for the pipe. The bigger the pipe they want, the more they pay. If
they want
their packets tagged for priority routing and QOS, they pay more.
Sort of
like the postal service or UPS.
Now, when you talk about providers actually BLOCKING certain web
sites I am totally against that. So when I hear that Google is one
of the
advocates of this "neutrality", YET, are partners in crime with china
depriving their citizens of certain content, I just see "Net
neutrality" as
mostly a bunch of hypocritical bs, though there are a few well
intentioned
individuals involved in it.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: MAX Wireless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dana Spiegel';
nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
FREE INTERNET! WOW! Where do I sign up? With my QWEST
charges and my ISP charges I'm pushing $40 a month. Doesn't
look free to me.
In the context of the MoveOn article the word "Free" was
meant to convey "Freedom", as in "Freedom of Speech", not $$$$.
Btw, heard this morning TV stations are looking to lock the
channels on your TV from being changed when a commercial
comes on. But for a fee they'll allow you to undo the lock.
I have very little info on it, just heard it on CBS radio
news this morning. What's the world coming to? 1984 twenty
two years late?
Larry.... ;-)
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question
authority." Benjamin Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jim Henry
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:29 PM
To: 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not
food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release
Date: 4/20/2006
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
