On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote: > 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 discussion just won't die, huh?
To my knowledge, what is being suggested is that companies like Vonage (or google) to pay for "preferential" treatment on Verizon's network, *if they so choose*. If you don't pay for preferential treatment, you'd get "best effort" service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. > This is discrimination of the worst kind. > > Furthermore, backbone prioritization has the effect of REDUCING the > speed of organizations that don't pay up. Are you trying to suggest "all packets are created equal"? They aren't. > 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. This reminds me of a discussion few weeks ago - and you are advancing same arguments without doing more research. Mainly, what is "best effort" and why it is a good thing. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
