[OT] The Internet (that Ben says does not exist) and Net Neutrality

Jeff Kinz jkinz at kinz.org
Sun May 21 21:09:00 EDT 2006


The furor is based on the change proposed by some big pipe owners which
"own" (provide access for lots of ) end users:

Said change is "We will charge some non-customers to let their bits travel
over our part of the network, to our end-customers"

It seems clear that everyone, except the big pipe owners mentioned
above, want the internet to stay with the traditional endpoint only,
"You pay to get your bits onto the network and to receive bits from the
network" model which we have all been using up to now.  With no charges
by whatever part of the network our bits happen to traverse in their
traveling.

The people attempting to "regulate" the internet are trying to preserve
exactly that traditional approach, although, as Ben points out, the laws
they are proposing might not do exactly that.

Bizarrely, I find myself in agreement in principle with both Ben and
Tom.  They both seem to want the same thing - a
"non-commercially-censored" Internet.  Equal access to and from all
legal content, leaving aside the discussion about illegal content.


On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:30:08PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:.........
>   I again reiterate my position that if there is a lack of competition
> due to an artificially granted monopoly, the solution is to get rid of
> the monopoly, and not try to work with something which is inherently
> broken.

	Amen to that Ben.  (or Ramen if you're Pastafarian)

Lastly - we know that some pipe owners already charge for bit traversal,
but those agreements are mostly forms of barter that end up saying "I'll
carry your bits if you'll carry mine" and this is done only to make sure
that each peering point doesn't end up paying for some other peer's
traffic.  The new traversal charge proposals do not provide any type of
peering compensation. They are a pure add-on charge for having access to
end user's.



On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:30:08PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Ted Roche <tedroche at tedroche.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it time to recognize that a company selling "internet access"
> > ought to be offering some standardized service, or at least some
> > baseline ...
> 
>   I point you to previous postings about unintended consequences and
> such.  I also ask, what should this "standard" be, and who should set
> it?
> 
> > Are or should internet providers be "common carriers?"
> 
>   My understanding is that, currently, there is no widespread
> consideration of most ISPs as common carriers.
> 
>   I do think that most ISPs should have common carrier status, with
> all the rights and obligations that entails.
> 
>   However, I also point out that common carriers still generally have
> the right to charge whatever they want for the services they provide,
> so the common carrier thing is mostly a red herring.
> 
> > Can thedecision be "left to the marketplace" when cable companies get
> > exclusive monopolies on service ...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
> 

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
Speech Recognition Technology was used to create this e-mail




More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list