[sf-lug] net neutrality

[Marc Juul]

Advertisements?
My very non-objective take on this:
The big media companies seem to want to treat the Internet as Television 2.0.
They know that TV as we know it is doomed even as they are fighting to
keep their current, obsolete, business model alive. They want to
deliver their content to people's homes through cable/dsl connections.
In order to deliver streaming flawless video they want to bribe your
ISP to give their traffic priority. This would perhaps be justifiable
if it was implemented as a QoS setting in the router/gateway device in
each home, with a default setting of "off". But if you ask me it
should be implemented as "give priority to streaming content" and not
"give priority to AOL extra HD all new premium streaming movie gold+".
This is not what they are talking about. They are talking about
prioritizing the data even before it reaches you, giving you no
choice, and theoretically clogging the pipes upstream of your
connection so that non-prioritized information would be slower for
you, even though you don't use AOLs theoretical movie service . So the
question is: Should it be legal to pay the ISPs to prioritize certain
data, deprioritizing everything else?

I guess you can compare it to Google prioritizing results based on how
much people paid them, except this is not some service that you can
just "not use if you don't like it", it's the Internet.

Marc Juul
marcjc at gmail.com

On 11/15/06, jim stockford <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>     the advertisements have started. i just finished
> reading wikipedia's description of net neutrality
> and i'm still confused. is it good or is it one of
> those terms that's been used backwards, good
> sounding label for some bad stuff?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>