Re: Network Neutrality Fans Lose on Capitol Hill

["Stephen J. Smoogen" <smooge () gmail com>]

On 3/28/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fergie wrote:
>
> > The beginning of the end for the telcos? Let the punditry begin!
> >
> > Via C|Net News.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > In a modest victory for broadband providers, a highly-anticipated bill
> > in the U.S. Congress does not include specific rules saying that some
> > Internet sites must not be favored over others.
> >
> > Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who heads the committee responsible
> > for telecommunications legislation, released the text on Monday and said
> > that a hearing had been scheduled for Thursday at 10 am ET.
>
> I have trouble understanding this whole "controversy".
>
> > From what I can tell, vendors of bandwidth plan to charge different
> customers different amounts for the product they sell.
>
> Everyone does this. Why shouldn't telcos?

I think because the 'roadway' analogy is too far in the brain of many
people. The problem with this is that most 'roads' are owned by the
state/government as a common ground. Where toll roads happen, they
have specific laws covering what they can/cannot charge for.  In this
mindframe, both business and people expect to be able to pay a single
rate (tax) for the same percs as everyone else on the road (eg if you
charge trucks more money for their usage of roads.. all trucks of the
same size get the same charge.)

The problem is that with privatization.. the internet is not a common
roadway and so the analogy is flawed from the beginning.. but it is
amazing how many people I have talked to who think that the
"Information Highway" should be the same as other "Highways".

--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.