On Wed, 31 May 2006, jim scott wrote: > 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. Does this mean that advocacy for "net neutrality" implies advocacy for more federal funding for internet development? I would love to see the internet grow. Mike