Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bj
Quote:
|
Pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses. Use whatever legal software and equipment you want. Access any legal site on the internet. That's true Network Neutrality. Not having some giant content providers trying to legislate free bandwidth for themselves while forcing average users to pay for the extra cost.
|
Um, we are in agreement with the Network Neutrality definition. What we are not in agreement on is what the Telecomms are doing. They wish the end of network neutrality so that they CAN packet sniff and discriminate. That's what this has been about all along. That's what they're planning on doing. They're trying to justify it by saying they're going to use that "fast pipe" to provide cableTV-like services, but once the door is open for packet sniff discrimination they'll just turn the internet into one big TV like entity, with everyone paying for access every which way, and the strong possibility that nobody on the receiving end will get what they wish. If I want to go to joe's pizza website I do not wish my dsl provider to send me to Pizza Hut since PH paid and the neighborhood guy couldn't afford to.
And the Giant Content Providers already PAY for their bandwidth no matter WHAT the Telecomm guys are saying. Google pays. You pay. I pay. Earthlink pays. Covad pays. In fact Tier 3, the backbone monopoly, gets everyone for blood money, when it used to be that the public peering points ran on reciprocal agreements. Bottom line is the telecomms just want us all to pay MORE.
Network Neutrality has been in place since the beginning. Everyone already pays for their bandwidth. The internet is thriving. Why do you think the Telecomm's fix for something that ain't broke is a good idea?
Keep in mind that we've ALREADY PAID for them to build the fiber network to the home. Do you have fiber to the home? I don't. |
Your argument, telcos want you to pay more, would be more convincing, if the telcos hadn't lowered prices to consumers to below the cost of dial-up in many areas.
As far as IPTV (if that's to what you are alluding), its their (telco's) product and on their own network. They don't have to charge themselves for that. If that was really the issue, don't you think the cable companies would be fighting the telcos too?
Maybe you want to pay for 500 cable TV channels and only watch seven of them. Personally, I'll be paying ala carte when it's available and saving a ton of money.
Don't worry, the competition with cable TV will ultimately cause your cable rates to decrease dramatically, as did long distance.
Also, if what you say is true, how does Vonage stay in business?
Competition is the key, not socialism. Don't just jump on a cool-sounding bandwagon. Think. If you won't think, "do it for the children."