[GLLUG] Re:Network Neutrality

[Clay Dowling]

Last I checked, Google does pay for all of their traffic.  They buy
network connectivity from their providers, who for that money are
obligated to provide a certain amount of bandwidth to Google.

Likewise, as an end user I buy bandwidth from Comcast.  For my money,
Comcast is obligated to provide me with a certain amount of bandwidth. 
Comcast has a couple of options if I go over that amount.  They can cut
off my access, or they can charge me an additional fee for the additional
bandwidth that I used.  They can then use that money to upgrade their
infrastructure.

The multi-tiered internet scheme is a shakedown.  It's the big business
version of the old protection rackets.  If any service providers try this,
I hope to see them badly burned by the courts.

Clay


Andy Lee wrote:
>>>> "Brendan Bartlett" <brenbart at gmail.com> 2/27/2008 10:47 AM >>>
> Where is the error in my logic?
>
>
> Actually, your toll road example is a good one, but you are wrong on how
> it works. Trucks and busses do pay more, because they use it more. They
> take up more space, and inflict more damage on the pavement, so the cost
> to get down the road is higher.
>
> As much as I want my provider to never get in the way of getting to
> content, I also understand the importance of quality of service. There is
> no way we could run voice video and data over our WAN without setting
> preference to certain types of data. Treating every bit the same isn't
> viable with the long term goals people have for the net, but saying all
> file sharing is bad isn't the option either. Definitely a problem for the
> network engineers to fix, not the legislators.
>
> -- Andy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
>


-- 
Lazarus Registration
http://www.lazarusid.com/registration.shtml