Posted on 05/24/2006 8:23:44 AM PDT by BackInBlack
Every now and then, the interests of the left and the right converge. The fact that Google and MoveOn.org are for network neutrality should raise a red flag, but shouldn't be the end of the discussion, at least not in this case. We should be giving this issue due attention and being thankful that sites like this don't have to pay tribute to Internet providers not to be treated like chumps.
are you implying that google is on the right? I disagree. My goodness, does nobody get it?
WHA?? I thought Al Gore invented the internet!
Maybe we need 12-round, no-holds-barred cage match on Pay
Per View to settle it.
What exactly is "internet nuetrality" and how does regulatio promote openess.
Example.
MyContent is a content provider and they pay Verizon for appropriate bandwidth. They may have a DSL, Frame, T1, T2, T3, ...etc, and their servers send content through Verizon.
JoeSixPack at home pays AT&T for appropriate bandwidth. He may have dialup, DSL, cable, ..etc. When JoeSixPack pulls content from MyContent provider, the content travels from MyContent to Verizon, and then to the AT&T network, where eventually it is deliver to JoeSixPack.
What AT&T doesn't like is that MyContent provider is paying Verizon the big bucks for the larger bandwidth, but, that content travels through AT&T infrastructure and AT&T is getting significantly less money to deliver the content to JoeSixPack.
As the number of JoeSixPacks increases (more AT&T customers) so does the demand for content. When you increase the number of high content providers (i.e., offering downloads of movies, large files, intensive graphics, ...etc), it places a higher bandwidth utilization on the AT&T network, and AT&T is not getting the revenue to support it.
So, AT&T wants to charge MyContent extra money to let their packets travel through the AT&T network, to ultimately reach JoeSixPack.
Alternatively, AT&T could simply raise its subscription rates across the board to all of its customers to subsidize the demands placed on their portion of the physical network. Alternatively, AT&T could charge customers based on the packet flow to that customer. Alternatively, AT&T could simply block access to MyContent provider when a certain maximum has been reached.
These alternatives are not that attractive. It is easier for AT&T to say, hey, these are my customers... not MyContent's customers. If MyContent wants to deliver high bandwidth content to my customers, then they should pay us for access to our customers.
All of the alternatives seem to be "free market" alternatives.
That's okay with me.
After a lot of thought, I support net neutrality. If they don't keep it that way, small sites are going to get swept aside like public access stations. Eventually, you won't just be able to get a website and push it effectively unless you are wealthy. No thanks. Keep it like it is.
AT&T again, huh? Cool. Looks like somebody needs broken up again.
Great book Berners-Lee wrote---Weaving The Web---recommended reading.
The PACs must have worked overtime to gain momentum on this. IMO, the real issue is that AT&T sold customers access based on a flawed utilization plan and now want to recoup money from high bandwidth content providers that the AT&T customers use. Either that, or, AT&T really believes the "its our customers, and you can pay us to deliver content to them" philosophy.
" are you implying that google is on the right? I disagree. My goodness, does nobody get it?"
When did I say that? Google and MoveOn are on the left.
Agreed. Thanks. I misread your post.
Precisely. If you're paying AT&T for a 1.5 Mbps connection, they don't get to retroactively change the deal to give you only 128 kbps because you choose to visit sites that haven't paid AT&T.
Do you have a link to a site that presents these arguments in a format suitable for literate adults?
No it isn't, because the process is repeated for every single site out there. It's much easier to charge their customers directly for their traffic, or renegotiate their peering agreements. Unless of course AT&T's goal is not to "recover bandwidth costs" but to extort money from content providers by threatening to cut them off. (And this works both ways; Google can quite plausibly argue that their existence adds value to AT&T's customers, and therefore AT&T should be paying them).
Shhhhh. Somebody might be listening. Of course that is their goal. They look at it from the corporate viewpoint of these customers are our assets, not yours, and if you want to pummel data to them, then you will need to pay us for access to these customers. It really is not hard to understand what their thinking is; it is just hard to agree with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.