It's not a big truck.<br><br><br>It's a series of tubes.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/4/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chick Tower</b> <<a href="mailto:c.e.tower@gmail.com">c.e.tower@gmail.com</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;">While reading a Slashdot article<br>(<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/10/04/0159249.shtml">
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/10/04/0159249.shtml</a>), I found this<br>comment by mabinogi. I think it's a simple yet superlative explanation<br>of why the desire of major ISPs to eliminate "net neutrality" is just
<br>plain wrong.<br><br> Chick<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>I don't quite think you understand the issue.<br><br>There are four parties involved.
<br>A. The content provider<br>B. The content provider's ISP / Hosting provider, whatever<br>C. The consumer<br>D. The consumer's ISP (in this case NextGenTel)<br><br>Note - A is _NOT_ a customer of D.<br><br>If A wants to serve more content at higher speeds, no problem, they pay
<br>B more money.<br>If C wants to get more content at higher speeds, again no problem, they<br>pay D more money.<br>No one has any problem with that concept.<br><br>The problem is when D decides that they can extort money out of A, by
<br>throttling the traffic between C and A unless A pays them some money -<br>regardless of the fact that D doesn't actually provide any service to A.<br>They try to use the justification that with there being so much high
<br>bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so<br>someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_<br>paying: C, the customer that actually requested the content from A in<br>the first place.
<br>If C's internet habits are really costing D money, then they should be<br>charging C directly, not charging the sites they visit - that's just insane.<br><br>I don't know how any of these companies think they can possibly justify
<br>it - they already have the means to cover their costs, it's not the<br>content providers' fault that the ISPs are greedy enough to try to<br>charge coming and going.<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>linux-user mailing list<br><a href="mailto:linux-user@egr.msu.edu">linux-user@egr.msu.edu</a><br><a href="http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user">http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user</a>
<br></blockquote></div><br>