They Make Comments

Well, not very often but check out this comment from loyal reader pkp646 on this post.

"More backbone and faster speeds cost more money. Charging more to use it should be a no-brainer to anyone who has ever worked in any business. Net neutrality just does not make sense as a matter to be regulated and stuffed down the throats of businesses."

My not very well thought out and unsourced response:

"I am not quite sure where to start with this comment. Yes more backbone requires investment. Something 15 other nations around the world are currently doing better then the US.

It seems to me that the Telcos who want to charge more (again) for bandwidth are trying to get paid a third time for the same lines. In addition the majority of the issue seems to revolve around telco's desire to offer video products via IPTV and compete with cable companies. I have read that Verizon is reserving 80% of its network for video.

I am not sure who is doing the stuffing. Telcos want to have a two tiered internet where they get paid more from the very companies that have made their products valuable. The telcos are the ones trying to stuff down regulation."

What do you think?

So I can't get enough of this one. Here are some pull quotes from past posts.

200 Billion to Beat Out Solovania:

"...during the buildup to the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, the major U.S. telcos promised to deliver fiber to 86 million households by 2006 (we're talking about fiber to the home, here). They asked for, and were given, some $200 billion in tax cuts and other incentives to pay for it. But the Bells didn't spend that money on fiber upgrades -- they spent it on long distance, wireless and inferior DSL services."

The case is simple: Do you have a 45 Mbps, bi-directional service to your home, paying around $40? Do you have 500+ channels and can choose any competitive service? You paid an estimated $2000 for this product even though you did not receive it and it may never be available. Do you want your money back and the companies held accountable?

Vinton Cerf:

"Nothing less than the future of the Internet is at stake in these discussions," said Cerf, now vice president and chief Internet evangelist at Google. "We must preserve neutrality in the system in order to allow the new Googles of the world, the new Yahoos, the new Amazons to form. We risk losing the Internet as catalyst for consumer choice, for economic growth, for technological innovation, and for global competitiveness."

The Cringely article:

"I asked Bob Kahn, the father of TCP/IP, and he made the point that the Internet is a Best Effort network and if you change that, well, you no longer have the Internet."

Lessig testifies before the Senate:

"It was in large part because the network respected what Saltzer, Clark and Reed called "the 'end-to-end' principle" that the explosive growth of the Internet happened. If this committe wants to preserve that growth and innovation, it should take steps to protect this fundemental design."

Daniel Berninger writing on Om's site states:

"The info tech industry needs the find a way to protect network neutrality, because the Internet will cease to exist without it."

More Two Tiered Internets:

"They want to charge us for the bandwidth the customer has already paid for," said Jeffrey Citron, chief executive of Vonage. Customers who already pay a premium for high-speed Internet access, he said, will end up paying even more if online services pass the new access charges to consumers. "The customer has to pay twice. That's crazy."