I think the Internet is going to grow no matter what. If you want to see network neutrality perserved while the Internet grows, one way to do that is by providing public funding. You could rely on private funding, but I expect that the growth of Internet capacity would be slower if you rely on private funding and require neutrality. If backbone providers can charge more for faster pipes, they have a greater incentive to build the faster pipes. On 5/31/06, Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> wrote: > > 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 > -- 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/20060531/25160f47/attachment.htm