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. 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. 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. On 5/31/06, Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:02:49AM -0500, Mike Miller wrote: > > > >> I think it is on topic but I have some questions about what sorts of > >> laws we should have. Will "neutrality" legislation discourage > >> companies from creating new networks for, say, high-speed video > >> transmission? Is it wrong for a company to build a network and then > >> control how it is used? > > > > As long as it is using public land (via eminent domain (obtained now or > > last century through the railroad acts)) or tax concessions, it is > > wrong. > > Why? Is there some established moral/legal principle behind that claim? > > > >> I like the internet the way it is, but I would like to see further > >> growth and expansion encouraged. I don't want to see the internet > >> replaced with a collection of corporate nets, but is that really going > >> to happen? > > > > You and I and the application provider pay our ISPs for access. Why > > should I pay (and be identified and tracked) at every hop en route? > > I don't know about the "identified and tracked" part of that, but the > reason you should pay to access some networks is that the network owner > wants you to pay. If you don't like it, don't use it. > > I'm not saying this is correct, I'm just saying that I don't understand > why we should want to stop companies from building private networks. > > > > What benefit would that bring to everyone, except the toll operator? > > I think the idea is that the private network will provide services that > are not available, or don't work well, elsewhere. > > > > And even if the toll operator would actively "grow and expand" his > > road/network, what kind of improvements would offset the incredible > > complexities of billing and the privacy invasion? > > The user would decide if he wants it. People who don't want to pay a toll > will have to drive on other roads. > > > I don't want this to turn into an unpleasant argument. I'm actually not > taking sides, just looking for more information. My first reaction is to > side with Microsoft and net neutrality, but then I think "Microsoft? - > since when am I on their side?" And I want to know more. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > -- http://ThreeWayNews.blogspot.com Your source. For everything. Really. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20060531/886fb833/attachment.htm