did anyone else read the sites that it linked to...
they make the rather strong argument that to access more premium content (such as ondemand video etc) that larger pipes have to be fitted to houses, and that net neutrality means that rather than the companies that insist on having stupidly large sites bogged down with videos, sounds and flash etc shouldn't have to pay for this.
the argument seems to focus on who should pay for what and what would offer the best way for technolgies to contiue emmerging and developing from the internet.
Now I know that there are some users here who still use dialup, and I really think that you have to look at the argument from the point of view of that.
the members who use dialup don't have broadband in the their area, and the question is who should pay for it to be installed?
Should Google pay just because they wish to offer larger content? (I don't think so!).
or should the people who benefit from the technologies pay for it? (I.e the customers), -I say yes...
the telecomunications companies should be installing larger pipes with more bandwidth as time goes on, as part of rolling upgrades which likely happen anyway!
As a broad band customer, I pay for network maintinance and repair, (ie putting the fatter pipes in), (and that is regardless of whether they are in my area of not). I pay a premium for using broad band as well.
If I want faster broadband I pay for a better service, (this is the exact postal vs fedex type situation that they are talking about). if I want a faster service I pay for the extra costs incurred, regardless of whether there are extra costs of not, fact is you have to consider line conntention, not everyone can have fast broadband, same as if everyone used Fedex then it wouldn't be any faster because the company as a whole would be too bogged down trying to get stuff places.
At present if I run a website from a commercial server farm then i have an allocated bandwidth and pay extra if I provide a large content that is used a lot (surely this is how it should be? I pay for what I use, where what I use is defined by how many customers I have accessing my site and useing bandwidth on my behalf seeing my business.).
why shouldn't Google be forced to pay for using more bandwidth, even if this does mean that you in turn then have to pa for accessing their higher quality services.
thats what a free market is all about, paying your way.
it kind of irritates me that there are plenty of people out there shouting about this and that internet who claim to be experts but fail to see that what they are fighting for is pretty much already in place, (aside from the government legislation - which would stiffle development).
as it is...
as you are a customer you pay for a service and the maintanance of that service, (even the dialup customers will eventually get faster lines when ilnes are upgraded).
as you (the customer) use more bandwidth you pay more for your downloads (some companies already cap download limits and make users pay extra for downloading more in a given time (usually a month). if you want an uncapped service (like I have), you pay extra.
from the content providers point of view, if you want to provide a website you pay for a connection and you pay for the bandwidth that you use,
if google want to stream video, then why should they be treated any different from me, where I'd have to pay the extra bandwidth costs.
it's already the case that Google (for example already have a faster connection to the internet because they paid for a better quality line!).
if you go with a cheap hosting company (and pay less) you useually get a slower connection rate, (hence the site is slower to load).
if you pay more, then you get a faster connection and your site loads faster!
(that is exactly the same as calling Joes pizza and having to wait because the line is slower, but Pizza hut offering a better connection then you can be put through straight away).
or was that fact somehow missed by the sensationalists that are trying to get the internet government regulated?
all I can say is thank god I'm not american!
