tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19495135.post114256718150152144..comments2023-09-28T08:06:51.944-04:00Comments on Jeff Kaplan - Open ePolicy: Net Neutrality -- Does It Matter?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13605638934971853164noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19495135.post-1143133552890550702006-03-23T12:05:00.000-05:002006-03-23T12:05:00.000-05:00I side with Jeff strongly on this one, DI. Your lo...I side with Jeff strongly on this one, DI. Your logic is Out-to-Lunch.<BR/><BR/>Neutrality must be preserved and legislating it is a good thing if that's necessary, which it appears to be.<BR/><BR/>One needs to be realistic when visualizing the mayhem caused if cable & phone companies were permitted to ration bandwidth -- in <EM>any</EM> way.<BR/><BR/>One equally needs to understand the fundaments of the Internet, how it works, to appreciate how selling a "fast lane" would indeed create a slow lane for other traffic.<BR/><BR/>It is especially disappointing that lobbyists or unthinking commentators like Douglas Holz-Eakin (once-director of the Congressional Budget Office) in his Mar 16 Comment in the Financial Times back pages frames the Net Neutrality issue as a regulatory issue and pushes Conservative buttons by distorting the issue to daclare something like: 'The 'Net should remain UNregulated...and therefore cable companies should be able to rent away premium bnadwidth.'<BR/><BR/>Not on my public space!<BR/><BR/>A better reference to the FT is the article from Mar. 20th:<BR/><BR/>Thomas W. Hazlett<BR/><A HREF="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/392ad708-b837-11da-bfc5-0000779e2340.html#" REL="nofollow">"Neutering the net"</A>Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114467834870409189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19495135.post-1142615160952180772006-03-17T12:06:00.000-05:002006-03-17T12:06:00.000-05:00No analogy is perfect. That said, sticking with my...No analogy is perfect. That said, sticking with my highway analogy, in fact the new fast lane could narrow the existing normal lane. How? If the telecom/cable companies reserve large amounts of bandwidth for themselves, forcing the ever-growing Internet traffic to use a narrower lane. This is compounded by the fact that many (most?) of us have no choice among broadband providers.<BR/><BR/>2 other related points:<BR/><BR/>1. Being able to slice up the bandwidth in effect allows telecom/cable companies to be the gatekeepers for new content and services on the Internet. This would undoubtedly have some negative effect on ease of innovation and content creation. As I mentioned, there is a reason why video blogs or individually created and self-aired TV channels have never appeared on cable TV.<BR/><BR/>2. Do we allow telephone companies to discriminate between telephone numbers by making one number I call connect faster than another number I call? That may be where this is headed.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13605638934971853164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19495135.post-1142615007211056192006-03-17T12:03:00.000-05:002006-03-17T12:03:00.000-05:00I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, fella.P...I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, fella.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the government should mandate a minimum connection speed to deal with the your basic issue of access, but why shouldn't a business be able to say "Hey, extra speed is (important to my users and so we are going to pay for it"?<BR/><BR/>It's the same way a business might select more expensive offices or anything else, for that matter. In your highway analogy, the question is whether this new "fast" lane crams all remaining traffic into a "slow" lane and hence blocks the normal flow, or whether it would provide the extra $$ to create even more lanes (i.e. broadband capacity).<BR/><BR/>Personally, I am all for business (and individual) choice so long as the cost isn't borne by the rest of us (i.e. an externality problem).<BR/><BR/>DIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com