If ever there was a reason to wrest control of the internet away from America to an international organisation, this is it! Bloody Republicans and their vested interests! (it was a Democratic amendment to ensure that the principle was kept in the new legislation)

I still can't quite believe this has been passed - net neutrality is the most fundamental principle the internet as we know it is based on.

Lets just hope that by a miracle the Senate doesn't rubber stamp it...

Simple background to why this is important.

Link to the article on todays events.

[ 06-09-2006, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

And the government takes one more step towards despotism....this has to be unconsitutional!

Make sure you understand what's being discussed... it's not about censoring the net or anything like that. They're talking about implementing a requirement that ISPs treat all traffic equally.

The fear is that ISPs will give priority to their own customers, thereby slowing things down for everyone else. If I'm an AT&T customer, they route my packets through bigger pipes with better performance, in effect creating a toll road. Or I pay a premium for faster access.

The flaw is that all ISPs would have to agree on it, or else AT&T would put me through quickly, but Earthlink, since I'm not one of their customers, would put me back on the slow road.

The net effect would be that everyone is on the slow road somewhere, and nobody is on the fast road all the way there.

End result... no benefit to paying to be on the fast road since you're going to be in the same traffic jam.

Sorry to disagree, but...

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I admit, that if this were only ISP's, then a problem wouldn't exist.

The big telecom companies however, physically own huge swathes of internet infrastructure, leasing the use of it to individual ISP's. The capability to create a two speed internet is certainly within their power.

Of course, their defense is that enough bandidth exists for all and it wouldn't make market sense for them to do so in any case.

However, with the principle of neutrality rapidly disappearing from US law, we have no guarantee that when it does make market sense to discriminate that they won't do so.

The exact wording of the amendment was:

Even if net neutrality is a "solution looking for a problem" as the teleco's allege, it's an amendment that any reasonable person would agree was in the public's interest.


But if there are dissenting voices, I'll edit the title to be a little less definitive :)

Edit: Lots of 'em as I think I misunderstood Bungleau

[ 06-09-2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I haven't read the actual proposed legislature yet, and I'd want to read that before trusting that a newspaper got the details all correct. No matter how good they are... [img]smile.gif[/img] Heck, other ought to read it themselves before they decide if I know what I'm talking about or not. :D

I agree that they focused attention on more than the ISPs. They're looking at the whole infrastructure, but there's no one company that owns the whole infrastructure. They may be few, but they are multiple.

The issue as I understand it is in treating all data equally. Now, that's a noble principle and well worth following, but tell me... does that mean that by having express checkouts, grocery stores are not treating all shoppers equally? Or by having special check-in lines for frequent guest club members, hotels and airlines aren't treating all guests equally? Since Chicago tollroads have different toll rates if you pay cash or via a pass card, are they not treating all drivers equally?

I don't have an issue with them creating a standard level of service, and then offering a premium service to those who wish to participate. I think the issue is that if they do that, they have to offer the premium as an up-tick. They can't offer the premium as a standard, and downgrade you if you don't participate (even though that's what's happening).

IOW, there's a minimum level of expected service, and you can pay more to get that level. Not pay more to get to the minimum level.

Not sure about your final comment... I think I misunderstood it [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW, the US doesn't control the telcos that manage the infrastructure, to my knowledge. So removing ICANN from US control won't do anything for this issue, delightful though the prospect may be.

You know what's nice about the net? So few laws governing it. You know what sucks about the European approach to life the universe and everything? An insane and inane fetish with red tape and writing laws, and regulations, and principles, and.... you get the point.

Less rules = better internet, and it's always been that way. One day we'll recall when freedom existed online, because it won't last forever.

Especially if useless Euros or US Liberals have their say.

Have I understood you right here Timber? You're basically saying that the net neutrality thing should have been left out because it's just extra red tape?

That's not the case here - net neutrality was originally legally applicable to the internet, but then the FCC rescinded this:

This isn't about adding extra red tape - it's about re-applying a fundamental principle that has applied to the internet since its conception and that should never have been removed in the first place.

For those who are still sceptical and think that market forces will stop this from happening, here are some examples that have already occurred in America and Canada:

This isn't just scaremongering - it's happening now.

[ 06-09-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

What's next? Everyone has to drive the same car so that way no-one will be able to faster than anyone else?
Let's also make sure that every job pays the same amount so that we all have the same amount of money.

If I remember correctly communism hasn't really proven to be all that successful in the past.

Talk about a confusing issue.
All I want is to get what I pay for as we speak now. The ability to go to the sites I choose without major hassle and issue. The right to go between companies for the best packaged prices and service. Pretty much the same way that one goes shopping for a car or groceries. If they do decide to change all these amendments, will they also enforce accompanying requirements to these companies such as:

- be entirely accurate as to what you are offering at what prices
- be honest when stating what websites you will and WILL NOT be able to access
- be accountable at all times for any and all data flowing through their network in terms of speed and reliability of completion (meaning how fast it gets from A to B and is it the whole data package and not missing chunks)

Probably not.
After all, that wouldn't be profitable, now would it?

If you don't understand what it's all about, check out this site

That is a woeful comparison.

This isn't about Communism; this is about freedom.

In case anyone is interested here are a couple of articles against net neutrality.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/mcc...net/index.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/14778336.htm

Thanks for those Knightscape.

Can't say I agree with this guy much:

He is incorrect, see examples of this successfully happening above.

Bah, he's just hoping his readers will go "oh yes, smart is better than stupid!".

In actual fact, dumb networks are wonderfully simple and robust - it's the reason that the internet has been able to scale up so well from its humble beginnings. If they make the network backbone much more complicated, expect breakage!

And I've really seen no evidence of an imminent lack of bandwidth for everyone...

[ 06-12-2006, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Exactly! and that seems to be one of their main argument points... And frankly, its damn stupid.

Ok, I already pay more for internet services than my mom, for example. I use broadband, and she's on dial up. I guess my thing is that even after reading the available material, I don't really understand what the goal is. Would nonpassage deny me access to the forums I visit, or increase the cost of my own website/blog, which I rarely use anyway? Will Yahoo be able to leverage me into paying more to insure that my website comes up on their search engine? If this is the case, then this is a bad situation. If I were making thousands of dollars a month through my site, then I probably wouldn't even notice much, but as a very low end consumer, it could push me out of existence, online anyway.
So far, I see this as a battle between content providers, and the pipe suppliers they use. The little providers, such as myself, are completely overlooked in the struggle. I want to know what it means to me, not what it means to Yahoo, or to Bell South. Should Bell South be allowed to "guarantee" a site gets hits because of the rate they pay? No way. That is discriminatory, to say the least. Should I have to pay a premium, above and beyond what I already pay to Cox Communications, to guarantee I have all the bandwidth that is available for my online forrays, be they message boards, or gaming? No, I already pay for that. Otherwise, I'd use dialup...From my perspective, and excuse the ramblings, it seems like allowing the pipe owners to set policy is a bad thing. Some of the more guru type of gurus should try to explain exactly what the limit on bandwidth really is, as so far, on the net in general, I haven't notice many shortages of it, except for the massive hits on a particular site for a download, but that's not net wide, that's a local shortage. Shortage may not be the right word, but extreme usage on one site will cause problems. Does this mean that the next time, assuming the pipe providers get their way, there is a shortage of bandwidth from a particular site, that they are going to step in and increase bandwidth to clear the bottleneck of data?

I think you're spot on RTB.

Which is another reason why the analogy with Communism is so off-target.

The wealthy currently can get a better service by paying more - I think this is as it should be! It's only right that we should pay more for a faster connection (dialup vs 8MB broadband).

That's why this really isn't about cost, but about power and control - and I'm a firm believer in it staying with us, the consumer. Consumer sovereignty (both on the internet and on your computer) is unfortunately being rapidly eroded by trends within society, of which this is merely the latest example.

I agree with Shamrock. We certainly don't want to take away the incentive to claw your way to the top of the economic trash heap and lord over your lessers.

You know what's funny? The only people I've experienced arguing against Net Neutrality and against "Freedom Online" happen to be Republicans. I've yet to meet any "Useless Euros or US Liberals" who want to curtail your internet freedom.

In fact, they're the ones who want to ensure that no one violates your freedom.com. There's more to freedom than being allowed to spend your money exactly how you want it. Like for example rules which prevent you from stepping on other people's rights.

Thank you for all that groundless racism/nationalism. How about an apology?

Once I get done being the fungus on the fungus of the bottom of that pile, TL, I'll start worrying about that. In the mean time, I need to be able to compete just a bit with the people that have the money to throw around. Causing me to pay to get a hit on a search, on Yahoo, who is hosting my domain, would equal me paying them twice for my site, without getting twice what I'm already paying for.

That is a woeful comparison.

This isn't about Communism; this is about freedom. </font>[/QUOTE]Communism...Maoism...Stalinism...take your pick.

The state (read: government) is determining your needs for you. I agree it's about freedom as well, but by regulating everyone to the same level you're taking the first steps to a repressive state by smothering your personal freedom.

Not likely. And from what I can tell "Net Neutrality" does NOT equal "Freedom Online." That's the whole problem here. The spinsters are spinning this on both sides.

I ain't no Republican, and I argue FOR net freedom and AGAINST rules making us treat all trash on the net equally and preventing us from paying for better or preferred net access.

Now I don't deny that Shamrock pointed out some concerns in the US and Canada where internet providers had acted like tools. I trust that the market is better to control that type of behavior than some bureauon.

And if you don't like my disdain for the European Socialist governments and their command-and-control style, then.... um... move?

[ 06-14-2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

But who decides what's trash and what's not? You? The government? The ISP's? What if some of the people in control decide that their competition is "trash"? Then the consumer will have a much harder time getting an idea of what's the best choice. You're not going to be the one deciding what's trash, the people with money and power are.

You just don't imagine that you'll be among the people screwed over.

How is it freedom that someone with money can get what the people without money can't? The people without money could be screwed by bad social conditions, poor parents or just plain bad luck, rather than a will to work. The people with money could simply have been born into it. Freedom to spend your money isn't freedom for everyone.

You just want freedom for yourself and the rich, not for all.

Sad.

The market does not strive for equality, freedom or any good thing. That's a patent lie. The market strives for profit. If you turn the market loose, if you think that it's going to "control" or "balance" itself, you're a fool.

At first, you'll see a benefit for the consumer as the various sellers fight amongst each other. Then as the number of sellers drop, they'll merge or ally for the purpose of pumping the consumer when there's no one to challenge them with better and more fair offers. Anyone new who arises, they'll just crush with money.

My issue isn't with what you think of our governments, racist, it's that you directly called us "Euros" useless(PS: It's Europeans, it's not that hard.). How is moving going to make me less of a European?

Come on, admit it, you're a racist. You know it. Deep down.

You complain about the Mexicans stealing your jobs, too, don't you? Well, guess what? That's the market! More cost-efficient work force!

But who decides what's trash and what's not? You? The government? The ISP's? What if some of the people in control decide that their competition is "trash"? Then the consumer will have a much harder time getting an idea of what's the best choice. You're not going to be the one deciding what's trash, the people with money and power are. </font>[/QUOTE]There are laws in place that determine what you can say or show on television without the FCC fining you

Quote:

You just don't imagine that you'll be among the people screwed over. How is it freedom that someone with money can get what the people without money can't? The people without money could be screwed by bad social conditions, poor parents or just plain bad luck, rather than a will to work. The people with money could simply have been born into it. Freedom to spend your money isn't freedom for everyone. You just want freedom for yourself and the rich, not for all. Sad.

not really, he wants things as they stand now to be standard, much like if you want cable speeds or DSL speeds you pay a premium over netzero's nearly free but highly restricted internet access, if you want better service then you have the option of paying more. If you can't afford to pay for 8MB cable internet, you can still get by on $10 a month from netzero or other discount providers, instead of whining about being born into poor circumstances that prohibit you from having the best access you could *gasp* work a little harder, and earn a little more to pay the difference.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Now I don't deny that Shamrock pointed out some concerns in the US and Canada where internet providers had acted like tools. I trust that the market is better to control that type of behavior than some bureauon.

The market does not strive for equality, freedom or any good thing. That's a patent lie. The market strives for profit. If you turn the market loose, if you think that it's going to "control" or "balance" itself, you're a fool.

At first, you'll see a benefit for the consumer as the various sellers fight amongst each other. Then as the number of sellers drop, they'll merge or ally for the purpose of pumping the consumer when there's no one to challenge them with better and more fair offers. Anyone new who arises, they'll just crush with money.</font>[/QUOTE]true enough, but that's why there are anti-trust laws, that's why Ma Bell isn't the sole phone provider in the states anymore, it's why the robber barons at the turn of the previous century had their monopolies broken up, it's what the gov't is trying to do to Microsoft (who is of course appealing everything and holding up the process). The laws are already in place to take care of that eventuality, they just need to be enforced.

Quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And if you don't like my disdain for the European Socialist governments and their command-and-control style, then.... um... move?

My issue isn't with what you think of our governments, racist, it's that you directly called us "Euros" useless(PS: It's Europeans, it's not that hard.). How is moving going to make me less of a European?

Come on, admit it, you're a racist. You know it. Deep down. </font>[/QUOTE]I doubt that considering most white americans (of which Timber is one) are of european descent, so he's racist against his ancestors?? opposed to the moronic governments in place, sure, but that's not saying the people are worthless because they're from Europe.

Quote:

You complain about the Mexicans stealing your jobs, too, don't you? Well, guess what? That's the market! More cost-efficient work force!

but the price of that cost efficiency is drasticly reduced quality of work, pushing those who are capable of higher quality out of business because people want a cheap house not one that will still be standing in 5 years. again the market will correct it eventually, but it will take a bit of time, just like everything in the market.

Net neutrality compromise proposed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060618/...eutrality_dc_1

From the article:

"Stevens has added a new section to his proposed bill aimed at preserving consumers' ability to surf anywhere on the public Internet and use any Web-based application..."

"However, the draft by the Alaska Republican does not include a ban on pricing content companies have demanded."


Protection for consumers while respecting the free-enterprise system. Seems like a good compromise to me.

The annoying thing here is that you usually have a point! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Now I don't feel particularly spun, but it's probably true to say I'm predisposed to be in favour of net neutrality. I tend to think that when it comes to issues of control, companies can take care of themselves and its the small guys that need protecting.

Perhaps we're talking about freedoms for two groups of people. On the one hand we have freedom for the carriers of information - the freedom for internet companies to charge what they want and (presumably in an imperfect market) possibly control their users.

On the other, you have freedom for internet users themselves; freedom for them to use the internet unhindered by any deliberate interference or obstruction.


The bit that still puzzles me (and why I still see this issue as fairly black and white) is what is unfair about the current situation to the companies.

At the moment, they already charge an amount proportional to the speed of internet access granted. If someone wants their ISP to give them a fast connection, they pay more. In effect getting 'preferential' treatment over someone who doesn't stump up the cash.

Furthermore, internet companies lease the use of their infrastructure and routers to the ISP's that use them, thus receiving a fair return for their investment.


This is my problem - the current situation that has arisen from net neutrality appears to be fair to the ISP's - they are not having to provide different levels of service for the same consideration. A packet of data from a webpage costs no more to transmit than a packet of data from a video stream, it's just the quantity that matters. ISP's already employ bandwidth restrictions to ensure that heavy users pay more - in other words, quantity of traffic is taken into account when they price.


In light of this, the only remaining benefit to ISP's of blocking net neutrality is that of control.

They can already charge different amounts to different levels of usage (thereby making the video-watching customer pay more than the person who checks their email once a week).

By giving them the power to say one packet of data is preferred over another, we give them the power to discriminate against particular types of traffic, rather than simply charge based on how much data is transmitted.

Since the quantity of data is what determines their costs, I simply cannot see an advantage of looking at what each packet is unless it is to allow them to exercise control over us.

I cannot see a wrong being righted, or any other economic advantage beyond the potential to use it for nefarious means.

Am I any closer to convincing everyone, or should I just give up? [img]tongue.gif[/img]


Thanks for the link there Knightscape, it's nice to see that there is some sort of compromise going on [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-19-2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Long time no talk Sham, just out of idle couriousity do you own any phsyiclly? do you want the government or others dictating what you can do with what you own? If you own things that the government and others can and do dictate to you what you can do with them how do you like it? Why should the telecomunications industry be any differant then you?

Second paragraph in the background article:"The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is considering making changes to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and one of the ideas being floated is that network providers should be allowed to offer preferential service to some of their customers instead of providing a neutral data carrier service."
Big whoppty doo! So somebody else want to give their customer preferential treatment, "Hale" if anybody out there works for a living they ARE allready doing that. If one of your customers wants something you do your best to deliver or you lose them as customers. If they are not your customer the ONLY reason you MIGHT give them preferential treatment IS in hopes you can make them your customer.

EDIT: I couldn't pass this up, from the same background info.: "Those in favour of "network neutrality" and keeping the current model of the internet as just a data conduit include big hitters such as Google, eBay, Amazon and even Microsoft.

They know it will cost them more if they have to pay to get their video delivered to users.

The phone and cable companies want to be free to charge for new services and make more money, and they argue that it's not up to the government what they do with their networks."

HMMMMMMMMMM it seems that it's NOT ok for the phone and cable guys to make money, but is ok for MIRCOSOFT not to have to spend more money? Rule#1 in business "Money in MUST excede money out!" if not you don't make money. So microsoft is ok to make money by trying to lower money out, that's ok. "HALE" I'll bet dollars to donuts the writer of the article was several years ago piss'n & moun'n about microsoft and anll the money it's making, now he/sge wants to hold microsoft up as something to be admired? Well spank my rear end an paint it purple.

[ 06-21-2006, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Sorry, can't help it :D

But this issue is far too important to not be consulting...a ninja.

http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/0...net-neutrality

and Sham, as far as I can tell, the ninja agrees with you :D

Good to see you again John D [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lucern - that link is totally crazy ;)

John D why would you want a purple ass???

Long time no talk Sham, just out of idle couriousity do you own any phsyiclly? do you want the government or others dictating what you can do with what you own? If you own things that the government and others can and do dictate to you what you can do with them how do you like it? Why should the telecomunications industry be any differant then you?

Second paragraph in the background article:"The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is considering making changes to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and one of the ideas being floated is that network providers should be allowed to offer preferential service to some of their customers instead of providing a neutral data carrier service."
Big whoppty doo! So somebody else want to give their customer preferential treatment, "Hale" if anybody out there works for a living they ARE allready doing that. If one of your customers wants something you do your best to deliver or you lose them as customers. If they are not your customer the ONLY reason you MIGHT give them preferential treatment IS in hopes you can make them your customer.

EDIT: I couldn't pass this up, from the same background info.: "Those in favour of "network neutrality" and keeping the current model of the internet as just a data conduit include big hitters such as Google, eBay, Amazon and even Microsoft.

They know it will cost them more if they have to pay to get their video delivered to users.

The phone and cable companies want to be free to charge for new services and make more money, and they argue that it's not up to the government what they do with their networks."

HMMMMMMMMMM it seems that it's NOT ok for the phone and cable guys to make money, but is ok for MIRCOSOFT not to have to spend more money? Rule#1 in business "Money in MUST excede money out!" if not you don't make money. So microsoft is ok to make money by trying to lower money out, that's ok. "HALE" I'll bet dollars to donuts the writer of the article was several years ago piss'n & moun'n about microsoft and anll the money it's making, now he/sge wants to hold microsoft up as something to be admired? Well spank my rear end an paint it purple. </font>[/QUOTE]*Gets can of purple spray paint*...Actually, I do lease a domain, and I have content up for people to browse, and hopefully buy. Some have, BTW. I already pay to have the domain hosted, and to be able to provide the content. Now, along comes the telecom companies saying, "OK, you can only get guarenteed hits on your site if you pay us too". Why? I'm no where near e-bay, or Yahoo, or Microsoft for income, but this would cause me to have to pay whoever to make sure that when people click the link to my site that they actually get there? Hey, I realize that you have to spend money to make money, but I sure shouldn't have to spend more money than I make. The fact is, people that lease bandwidth from the telecom companies are already paying to get their information out there, and now the telecom companies want more. The problem is, where does it end? Am I going to have to shut down my site because I can't afford to pay 5k a year to guarentee hits when people click an existing link, to an existing site? If that's the case, it's going to bring places like this, YouTube, and other sites that provide free entertainment/information to a stand still. No more Wikipedia? People that don't have the money to pay to guarentee the stuff they have already paid to host gets hits will quickly die, virtually anyway. My site included. If they doubled my current plan price, I'd have to shut down. What would happen to IW? I've donated when I can to help keep it running, but what happens if the costs double?
So, while it may seem to be a harmless piece of legislation, it can actually do a lot of harm to a lot of "little guys", because we won't be able to compete. I don't know how much competing I really do right now, but I do know that if you click the link in my sig, you will get to my site. If the telecom companies get their way, you'll get a 404 error, even if I do still have my site up, because I couldn't pay them to be sure you got directed there.

Robert has got it spot on I think.

This article makes a similar point that we risk doing away with people's ability to publish their content and have it viewed.

In terms of 'owning' a piece of infrastructure, I do rent a server in America, for secure backup purposes and donating to community projects (eg for Escape from Undermountain) - I pay for the privelege of publishing already, at a price determined by the market that the hosting company can make a profit with. Why should I have to pay more to guarantee that people can access my content?

JD: Your comment about unfairly restricting them from charging for new services is off the mark I think - they won't be providing new services. The reason we don't have access to legal streamed movies for example is entirely down to the movie industry not having come up with a way to do it with sufficient control for example. It's not an issue of bandwidth or whether we have a 'new generation' of internet.

That's going to be the case with a lot of media, I believe. I can put my music on my site to either sell, or make available for download, because I own it, intellectually, and physically. I made the music, I can do as I wish. The providers that sponsor music for paid/free downloads own the rights to do that, purchased from the media providers. The way I understand this stuff Telecoms are pushing for, the providers will have to purchase the license, or own it outright, as I do, and then pay them for the right to provide it, above what they already pay. It's not, as Shamrock said, about providing new services, it's about lining their pockets more for services they already provide.

You may notice, as well that my position has cemented on this issue, unlike when I first read about it. I looked at both sides, and asked the question, what does it mean for me? What it means it that I will essentially be paying twice for my domain, once to put the info up, and again to be sure the info gets seen. That's not fair business practice, whether you're a multi billion dollar industry, or operating like me, where it is actually costing me more to keep the site up than I've made. Changing the current status quo puts a lot of people like me out of the loop, completely. It's one thing to want to promote fair competition, it's another to want to line your pockets at the expense of content providers. Why do people buy/lease domains anyway? To put content out to the world, whether that be for profit, or entertainment, or to just host sigs. Asking these people to pay their domain provider, and the the company that gets paid by them is not fair business. It's robbing people because you can.

I think you are right shamrock, I don't mind paying a premium price for premium service but I don't want to have a situation like we now have with our cable companies where they put different packages together and you pay for the package you want and they charge accordingly. You don't know with the internet what sites you are going to need on a given day. I don't want to pay extra to come to Ironworks just because my carrier see's I go there a lot and it's an opportunity to charge me more for what I want. That's over simplifing it but the idea is the same.

I didn't get that the issue was whether or not people would be able to see your content. What I understood was that they were considering offering services to their customers such that they provided a faster pipe to their sites than they would to other sites. So it wasn't a question of visibility, but of speed of access.

Now, given that the average person allows something like 15 seconds for a page to come up, speed does matter, but it's not a case of blocking non-paying sites.

And the cost is on the site provider, not the surfer. So I wouldn't have to pay extra for IW, but Z might have to pay extra for faster hosting.

[ 06-23-2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

I think visibility is simply the flip side of the coin.

Prioritising content according to the wishes of the infrastructure provider is the first enabling step towards the possibility of denial of service.

If we consider Ironworks and an imaginary competitor Steelworks. Lets say AT&T decide that Steelworks should have priority because they have the cash to pay a premium, so they ensure that packets to/from Steelworks take priority and travel at a faster speed.

Faced with longer load times and possibly even dropped connections, is this any different in practice to a denial of service on Ironworks? Speed of access is directly related to visibility.


As for MS et al - as a Linux user who constantly is annoyed by their boneheaded and anti-competitive software, I am the last person to side with them normally. In this case however, they're right.

[ 06-23-2006, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Yeah, to break that down, accessibility is visibility. The easier it is to get to the site, the better your chances are to be successful, in what ever you're trying to do with the site. In my case, I have media on site that needs to be playable, and if they restrict the bandwidth for it because I can't pay, then my site might as well be closed down.

I think visibility is simply the flip side of the coin.

Prioritising content according to the wishes of the infrastructure provider is the first enabling step towards the possibility of denial of service.

If we consider Ironworks and an imaginary competitor Steelworks. Lets say AT&T decide that Steelworks should have priority because they have the cash to pay a premium, so they ensure that packets to/from Steelworks take priority and travel at a faster speed. </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't that called free enterprise? When ordering products on-line, you have the option to pay more for premium or rush shipping, right? What's the difference?

Because they don't charge the content provider for all the shipping no matter which one the customer uses. If you use priority shipping, that's what you're charged with. The way I read this, to guarantee that I can provide the music on my site for customers to listen to the easiest, I have to pay the telecom company too, instead of just paying Yahoo, who already pays the telecom company. Essentially, it's paying for my site twice.

But your payment to Yahoo is simply for basic service, where as the additional payment to the ISP is for premium service.

I certainly understand the implications this has for small business, but I don't see any difference between this and brick-and-mortar business. Capitalism has a price.

So the telecommunications company that provides the pipe that I use through Yahoo should get paid twice for the same content? Once from me, and once from Yahoo? Because this is what you are advocating here. I'm not paying for a separate package, I'm "bribing" the telecom company to put me on their preferred list. I shouldn't have to do that. Yahoo pays them to provide me the pipe space I use. I shouldn't have to pay them too.