Jim,
I'm glad to see that you are finally coming around to our way of thinking
regarding that the Consumers pay for access on their end and the content
providers pay for access on their end. You got that much right. Where you
are still a little confused is using AT&T and Verizon in the same sentence
with freedom. If end users want to have their packets tagged for priority
routing and QoS and pay more for it, I'm O.K. with that as well, as long as
those tagged packets do not hinder the passage of non-tagged packet already
on the network.
With UPS, if you want overnight delivery of a package that package goes into
a special bin, is routed to an airport, placed on an airplane, and takes
"special" transport to the receiving city. This "special" transport in no
way effects the movement of "standard" packages loaded onto trucks and
shipped to another city's distribution hub to be loaded onto another truck
for delivery to a home or business, or maybe to another distribution hub,
possibly taking a few days. The "standard" package shipper knows and
accepts that time frame.
Now, if AT&T or Verizon is interested in building a "special" separate
transport network to speed along tagged packets so as not to hinder the
"standard" packets I wholeheartedly support them doing so.
You and I agree again. I'm glad to see we're making progress with you. We
agree that providers should not be blocking access to any content.
Unfortunately, Communist China still wants to keep its people away from true
Net-Neutrality, and the truth in general, by not allowing providers to
provide all the content the Chinese end-users would like to see. We all
have to work very hard to identify, point out and work to end hypocrisy
wherever we find it, whether in China or here in the good old USA.
Larry, or Max, or whatever, just don't call me late for diner. ;-)
"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of
science. Truth is what stands the test of experience."
Albert Einstein
-----Original Message-----
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
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
