Net neutrality is not simple. If you want nationwide on-demand video, for example, you need more backbone capacity. Providers won't build the extra capacity unless they are ensured payment for it. Content providers won't make the on-demand video available unless they are ensured of a high-quality delivery system.
<br><br>The path to Internet 2 requires a substantial investment in network capacity. If you believe the Internet is a public good (like a road), then the best solution is a publicly funded build out of a high capacity network. If you believe the Internet is a private good (like a shopping mall or video store), then the best solution is a privately funded build out where an open market determines the costs and speed of delivery.
<br><br>I see the Internet as a public good that makes a rare contribution to democracy itself. I think the best solution is publicly fund an internet backbone across the U.S. to be managed for the benefit of all citizens.
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/31/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mike Miller</b> <<a href="mailto:mbmiller@taxa.epi.umn.edu">mbmiller@taxa.epi.umn.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Florin Iucha wrote:<br><br>> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:02:49AM -0500, Mike Miller wrote:<br>><br>>> I think it is on topic but I have some questions about what sorts of<br>>> laws we should have. Will "neutrality" legislation discourage
<br>>> companies from creating new networks for, say, high-speed video<br>>> transmission? Is it wrong for a company to build a network and then<br>>> control how it is used?<br>><br>> As long as it is using public land (via eminent domain (obtained now or
<br>> last century through the railroad acts)) or tax concessions, it is<br>> wrong.<br><br>Why? Is there some established moral/legal principle behind that claim?<br><br><br>>> I like the internet the way it is, but I would like to see further
<br>>> growth and expansion encouraged. I don't want to see the internet<br>>> replaced with a collection of corporate nets, but is that really going<br>>> to happen?<br>><br>> You and I and the application provider pay our ISPs for access. Why
<br>> should I pay (and be identified and tracked) at every hop en route?<br><br>I don't know about the "identified and tracked" part of that, but the<br>reason you should pay to access some networks is that the network owner
<br>wants you to pay. If you don't like it, don't use it.<br><br>I'm not saying this is correct, I'm just saying that I don't understand<br>why we should want to stop companies from building private networks.<br><br><br>
> What benefit would that bring to everyone, except the toll operator?<br><br>I think the idea is that the private network will provide services that<br>are not available, or don't work well, elsewhere.<br><br><br>> And even if the toll operator would actively "grow and expand" his
<br>> road/network, what kind of improvements would offset the incredible<br>> complexities of billing and the privacy invasion?<br><br>The user would decide if he wants it. People who don't want to pay a toll<br>will have to drive on other roads.
<br><br><br>I don't want this to turn into an unpleasant argument. I'm actually not<br>taking sides, just looking for more information. My first reaction is to<br>side with Microsoft and net neutrality, but then I think "Microsoft? -
<br>since when am I on their side?" And I want to know more.<br><br>Mike<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota<br><a href="mailto:tclug-list@mn-linux.org">
tclug-list@mn-linux.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list">http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://ThreeWayNews.blogspot.com">
http://ThreeWayNews.blogspot.com</a><br>Your source. For everything. Really.