[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ProgSoc] Pranksters behind "Save the Internet"





On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Roland Turner wrote:

http://www.chaser.com.au/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=174&topic=2857.0

[this reply reproduced on-list with permission]

Umm, interesting. I was not aware of SaveTheInternet, but the 'net
neutrality issue itself is no hoax.

Your article, perhaps in maintaining consistency with the hoax,
misrepresents tiered access. It's not about speed, it's about which
content providers are _permitted_ at any speed, and for how much, to
deliver content over last mile circuits. The issue is not about
compensation for bandwidth use, but about forcibly gaining a share of
advertising revenue.

I'm not the only one having trouble dissecting this issue. (That's why I wanted to be first on the block in case it was really a hoax).


Currently I seem to be encountering a host of arguments, re:
- ISPs asking hosts for money for a connection
- ISPs asking hosts for money for speed
- ISPs asking hosts for a slice of advertising revenue
- ISPs asking end-users for money for a connection to certain hosts
- ISPs asking end-users for money for speed to certain hosts

SBC has already stated publically that it intends to extract cash out of Google et al for the privilege of communicating with SBC's paying customers, over and above existing bandwidth trading arrangements, that

Eh? See, that doesn't make sense. If I connect to SBC, and let's assume for a moment they are the only choice I have for cable or DSL, then what the hell am I going to do when they don't give me access to Google?


I'm going to ring them up and complain my connection is down, or disconnect.

But maybe then you'll tell me that this is about speed ('tiers') and not access after all. In which case it's the old argument about paying for speed and not getting what you thought you paid for. If I pay for 1Mbps downlink today, and only get 512kbps from video.google.com, then what's so unusual about that? I might have to pay for faster access, absolutely.

is to say, to collect monopoly rents. The regulatory history in the US is pretty different to that in Australia, what SBC has done is essentially fire an opening salvo in a campaign to overturn a decades-old solution to AT&T's monopoly abuse.

Okay I'm familiar with AT&T, their history, and what was done to break it up. But are we back at square one again? What does this really mean?


Roughly speaking, they're looking forward to resuming their abuse of markets and captive customers.

Agh, I'm as yet at a loss to determine exactly which law needs to be added / removed / prevented / prevented from removal.


And then how that applies to Australia ... but for now I'll happily argue from the perspective of an American user.

CK.

-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.