Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?

[James R. Van Zandt]

"Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
>   On 5/11/06, Fred <puissante at lrc.puissante.com> wrote:
>   >>  Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate?
>   >> ... For just about everything in the world, the more you use,
>   >> the more you pay.  ...  Why is data transfer different from the
>   >> rest of the universe?
>   >
>   > Data, on the other hand, *is* in a different universe. Your ISP does not
>   > incur costs on a per-packet basis.
>
>     That's not actually true.  We just like to look at it that way.
>     The shared network is always oversubscribed -- meaning the backbone
>   capacity is less than the aggregate of all the subscriber connections.
...
>      But this also means that the more bandwidth a subscriber uses, the
>    bigger the slice of the shared network pie they consume. 
...
>      Now, pricing structure isn't just about bits.  In many cases, the
>    average subscriber usage pattern is good enough, so it isn't worth the
>    hassle of metered billing.  Just charge people a flat rate and be done
>    with it.  But that's a statistical business decision.  The costs are
>    still there.

Right.

>      So, if a carrier wants to charge Google more money because they eat
>    up more infrastructure than GNHLUG does, that alone doesn't make me
>    want to take to the streets with a torch and a pitchfork.

What if it's not Google's ISP that wants to charge Google extra, but
one or more of the other carriers along the way?

I guess I would like to discourage a carrier from interfering with
competing services - e.g. a phone company interfering with VOIP
offered by some other company.  On the other hand, I don't mind a
company intefering with a DDOS attack or spam.  But how to draw the
line?

            - Jim Van Zandt