RE: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 3 May 2006 Blanchard_Michael () emc com wrote:

> > I'm still having trouble understanding this whole issue. If its about 
> > banning discriminatory pricing, then it flies in the face of all normal
>
> > commercial practice. You simply do not charge everyone the same price. 
> > For example, people who buy big volume, usually get offered a better 
> > price.
>
> I think they actually wanna do the opposite of that.  Charge the heavy
> "users" (users in this case Google, yahoo, sourceforge, etc) more to
> give them priority on the available banwidth.
>
>   So the people that pay more, will get better QOS on their packets.
> I'm afraid that those that don't pay this this extortion fee (did I say
> that outloud?), will find their packets being routed through east
> boondock-ville, or worse routed into the bit bucket alltogether.
 
It's still diofferential pricing, whichever way round you do it, and 
that's been commercial practice since the snake gave a loss leader apple 
to Eve.

_______________________________________________
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.