Vitally important issue

Actually, this is a really important issue. Call your congresscritter today!

Another (slightly more technical) update after the jump:


8 thoughts on “Vitally important issue”

  1. It’s no more a piggyback service then, say, Google or Ebay. All of these services send their packets over the public internet. None of them have invested very much in wire. They pay other companies to – ISP’s that provide <b>them</b> with bandwidth.

    What some the ISP’s that are wanting to do is to be able to bill the customers for bandwidth, and then re-bill the content providers for access to that same bandwidth.

    Basically, it’s like extortion to the content providers. The ISP’s say – if you want your packets to be able to cross into our space, you need to pay a fee.

    While I think that it’s perfectly fair for ISP’s to pay interconnect fees to each other and to Mae East and Mae West, an ISP charging another ISP’s customer again for the bandwidth that was already paid for via the content provider’s fees and the ISP’s interconnect fees is getting a little bit out there.

    All I want to see is pay once and get what you pay for. ISP’s blocking things like YouTube or Vonage because they are not the ISP’s pet project is simply not a level playing field. If the ISP’s want folks to use their VOIP service over, say, Vonage, then make theirs better. Don’t cripple the competition because they will not reimburse you for your customers using the bandwidth that they have purchased from you to access their service rather then yours.

    wow – sorry that was a wee bit longer then I had expected :)

  2. The problem with Vonage is that it’s a "piggyback" service. It sends those packets over the public internet, using the very same cable fiber networks that its competition built. That doesn’t really seem fair to the companies that invested heavily in their wired networks.

  3. I am a little bit agnostic on net neutrality but leaning against it. The ‘solution in search of a problem’ argument carries quite a bit of weight with me, and the more drastic scenarios that will happen if this is not enacted seem quite unlikely.

    It also occurs to me that a changing profile of net use will make changes in how things have always been necessary. The price of internet usage is based largely on how an average user uses the internet. Adding VOIP and movies on demand will change that greatly. Right now, those who make extensive use of this sort of thing are partially getting a free ride because most people dont. As this changes and more people adopt extensive use models things will get more expensive. The question then is, does everyone pay the increased cost or do only the users of those services pay the increased cost? Net neutrality seems to be everyone pays those costs.

    As for the FCC and radio, the justification there is that everyone owns the airwaves, so a government regulating body is appropriate to determine how it is used. That obviously doesn’t apply to wired networks.

    Also, as a caution the FCC exists to portition this bandwidth. They have moved beyond that purpose though and do regulate content. See Howard Stern or Janet Jacksons nipples. The Government ends up having a lot more interest in regulating content than a private company does, and there is little chance of switching services if that happens.

  4. sorry – half thought out idea :)

    The FCC does not allow folks to jam radio or TV stations – this is similar in theory…

  5. It has <a href="; rel="nofollow">happened</a> already.

    The problem that I see is that if an ISP does do this, how are the non-internet savvy customers going to know? The FCC does not allow folks to jam TV or radio stations.

    I would prefer a free market solution to this issue, and I agree that it very well might be to early to act on this, however I think that it’s a very good idea to start educating the public about this important issue.

  6. I wholeheartedly agree with "Net Neutrality" on premise…. But as with all issues before Congress, especially in today’s special-interest political environment, the motivations and methodology are now as important as the issue itself. My company talking points are "this is a solution without a problem." I don’t always personally agree with my company line, but this time, I do. This is government interference without demonstrated market failure, and that is often a losing proposition for the government. I appreciate your comments in the other post about this issue…. I don’t disagree. I’m one of the biggest fans of the First Amendment you can find. I consider the internet to be a public commodity like radio frequencies, and that it belongs to the public.

    One other thought, though. If ISPs decided to operate the way the proponents of net neutrality suggest, they’d hemorrhage customers. It’s silly to think that this idea hasn’t crossed the minds of ISPs before and been discounted for that same reason. If they wanted to censor the internet, they’d be trying it already. If for no other reason, it doesn’t make business sense….

  7. I like the ninja. :)

    Never feel shy about calling BS, or bringing up other view points. I don’t do this to be talking to the already converted. I am strange, I guess, but I enjoy intellegent conversation

  8. The ninja is a funny presentation…and I should say that on the whole I’ve been a longtime reader of your blog. (And of Chimmy’s.) But these groups are making an issue where there isn’t really one. I realize that this is your blog, and you have a right to say anything you want, but it seems important to me to show the other positions on this issue. At the very least, and especially because you are so informed on this….why not refute it point-by-point?

Comments are closed.