Net neutrality discussion (WSJ)

[PrntRhd]

I came across this discussion regarding net neutrality which pits the big ISPs against major Internet destination operators and consumers. The article has Craig Newmark, originator of Craigslist on the neutrality side and Mike McCurry as a spokeman for the Telcoms on the other:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114839410026160648-l8Cd7lakn_8givyNOVIeReUDNLw_20070523.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top

I placed this in After Hours as the issue is becoming politically charged. Please be careful to keep the discussion civil in tone.

[jlreich]

Interesting.

If they want to charge more for a faster download, well they already do that. My ISP has a premium service (8Mb) that costs about $25 more than the standard service (5Mb). I have no problem with that. If you want to watch HDTV through the internet then you will need to get the premium service if that's what it takes. If you exceed the so called "unlimited" bandwidth limit for your package, then upgrade.

The same goes for the server side of things but in much bigger numbers of course.

If they want to start charging according to content, well I have a big problem with that. It will make the internet pretty much useless. It will make things much more complicated and expensive.

I thinks it's just the telco's trying to find a way to make more money. I won't blame them for trying to make more money, but this is the wrong way to do it. Don't come in and ruin the internet. :eek:

[PrntRhd]

Actually the telcos want to charge extra on both ends of the pipes they control.

They want to charge big "content" sites more to take more of their wealth. They will take money to allow one search engine or enterprise site to load faster than another. For instance if Google refuses to pay extra, they will make Yahoo search have faster response, and Yahoo is definitely a partner with the telcoms. By its very nature this going to discriminate against other sites. They say they will not degrade connections but really now, is that true?

[mjc]

I can't remember who the quote was attributed to, but it was about most of the fiber being unused.

Several years ago, many miles worth of fiber was strung all over WV, including right in front of my house. In fact I sit about 25' from it as I type this. It is virtually unused, in fact I'm pretty sure that it isn't even connected at the local telco office.

So I don't want to hear the Verizon and the other 'Baby' Bells bitching about bandwidth...or any telco for that matter. It isn't about bandwidth, that's for sure.

[PrntRhd]

This article estimates the telcos could gain about $2 billion more revenue by 2010 if their QOS tarriff is implemented.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=95222

ATTs Project Lightspeed is expected to cost $4 billion and change, so they are going to leverage the revenue to transform their business without putting up the money themselves.

[mjc]

And the really sad thing is that most of the fiber that is currently installed has been done so with piles of Federal and state $$$...not telco money.