On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 20 of 44:
Next »
« Previous
How is it "no-fault" if you pay based on use?
We have "net neutrality" now (the sharing of a common main pipeline - actually a common network).

We have pricing based on usage now. Sure the pricing schemes could be fairer, but that could be done without killing net neutrality.

Of course the networks are "managed" now. What you're talking about is segregating traffic based on QOS (quality of service) requirements.
I'll admit that it is more "optimal" to provide QOS guarantees on a smaller subset of traffic.
I just don't think that I should have to give up my net neutrality to accomplish it.
If Walmart had its own interstate highway, I'm sure their operations would run more optimally as well.
It would also be unfair competition, and a really bad idea for democracy in the long run.

Big media companies already have on-demand distribution channels. Or do you get to decide what is offered:
-on store shelves
-on digital TV
-on talk radio
-on magazine racks
-in movie theatres

The internet is the most (actually the only, in my opinion) democratic mass medium. It is the most level of playing fields, where tiny startups can still challenge the giants. It is as accessible as the public road network.

I would think twice about tossing that away. So should you.

I WOULD consider your idea of having separate hi-speed network with content strictly limited to video, although the media companies already have their exclusive distribution channels, as I said.

They could not expect the same QOS that they get on traditional channels, unless they "owned the network" (or were "assigned" a subset of it). Even then, what do they do about abnormal peak demand? So you would kill net neutrality and still not have guaranteed QOS.

There are other technical solutions, such as buffered delivery, without giving up on the fair and democratic internet we are so glad to have.
Posted by: welcome to hell   Posted on: 05/22/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

If only big truck companies used the highway...  welcome to hell | 05/18/06
Monopoly remedy  OhMyGosh | 05/18/06
it ain't an idea  Spicoli the Cannoli | 05/18/06
Standard Oil didn't buy the railroads.  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
You are right. They didn't buy railroads.  welcome to hell | 05/20/06
As a capitalist...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/18/06
WiMax exceeds expectation  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
Except that.....  aemc | 05/19/06
You dont want net neutrality...  osreinstall | 05/18/06
Horsepuckies...  BitTwiddler | 05/19/06
So you oppose "net neutrality".  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
Re: So you oppose "net neutrality".  none none | 05/19/06
Not at all.  osreinstall | 05/19/06
Re: Not at all.  none none | 05/19/06
Bandwidth hogs would oppose a meter  osreinstall | 05/19/06
Re: Bandwidth hogs would oppose a meter  none none | 05/19/06
They would and so would a lot of other people.  osreinstall | 05/19/06
Yes I do. It guarantees a fat pipeline for all.  welcome to hell | 05/20/06
That is like No-Fault insurance  osreinstall | 05/20/06
How is it "no-fault" if you pay based on use?  welcome to hell | 05/22/06
Net Neutrality is forced fairness which isn't.  osreinstall | 05/22/06
Call it whatever you like. It's fair.  welcome to hell | 05/22/06
You wear out the equipment, you pay for it.  osreinstall | 05/23/06
RE:You wear out the equipment, you pay for it.  welcome to hell | 05/24/06
Companies do have a limit. It just isn't posted.  osreinstall | 05/25/06
Re:Companies do have a limit.  welcome to hell | 05/25/06
Net Neutrality would not allow them.  osreinstall | 05/25/06
RE:Net Neutrality would not allow them.  welcome to hell | 05/26/06
Plenty of poor folks would use the slow lane.  osreinstall | 05/27/06
Useless.  systemcleaner | 05/19/06
think of the children!!!  csa0307 | 05/19/06
Ha  petemitchell | 05/19/06
Contact your congress persons  petemitchell | 05/19/06
The issue is only and exactly: Who pays.  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
Everybody already pays.  johndoe445566 | 05/19/06
Capacity in addition to current.  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
Re: The issue is only and exactly: Who pays.  none none | 05/19/06
Metering is fairer  Knorthern Knight | 05/20/06
Correct me if I'm wrong...  rapson | 05/19/06
Hey Telcos!  SysTech42 | 05/19/06
How about having the speed available...  Anton Philidor | 05/19/06
That's what you have now.  welcome to hell | 05/20/06
One thign that bothers me  aemc | 05/19/06
RE: Politicos propose new action on Net neutrality  zebedeedee | 11/26/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here