web counter

October 5, 2006

Net Neutrality 10-05-2006

ME Liz Strauss wrote this at 4:48 am

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

MORE FROM:
Neutrality’ Is New Challenge for Internet Pioneer
an Interview on Net Neutrality with Sir Tim Berners-Lee By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 27, 2006

[ . . .]
Q. Do you have a view about the behavior of the telephone companies in this debate? Is this simply traditional monopolist behavior, or is it more subtle? Have you talked to them to understand their motivations?

A. I have tried, when I’ve had the opportunity to find out, to understand their motivations, but I can’t speak for them. So all I can do is guess. But my guess is that it’s not that this is a nefarious planned plot to take over the Internet by a bunch of people who hate it. What I imagine is that it is simply the culture of companies, which have been using a particular business model for a very long time. So I think there is a clash of corporate cultures.

Q. What do you make of justifications involving quality of service, which would give certain types of Internet data, like voice and video, right of way over other kinds of data?

A. They say, “It will cost us an awful lot of money for this quality of service, and therefore we will have to disband neutrality.” They’re not actually logical. Some people say perhaps we ought to be able to charge more for this very special high-bandwidth connectivity. Of course that’s fine, charge more. Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn’t be able to charge more for a video-capable Internet connection. That’s no reason not to make it anything but neutral.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Share This


Filed under Business Life, Community, SOB Business, Successful Blog, Trends |



C'mon. Let's talk!

8 Comments to “Net Neutrality 10-05-2006”

  1. October 5th, 2006 at 7:05 am
    Melissa Petri said

    off topic…

    Congratulations on the new writing gig, Liz!

    I can only say one thing… it took this long for them to discover you?!

    *mwah*

  2. October 5th, 2006 at 7:06 am
    ME Strauss said

    Hey, Melissa,
    I’m very good at hiding plain sight I guess. :)
    How the heck are you?

  3. October 5th, 2006 at 8:00 am
    HandsOff said

    Hey Liz- I enjoy reading your net neutrality updates and appreciate your staying up-to-date on the issue. We at the Hands Off coalition, as do most people, agree that companies should be able to charge more for higher-bandwidth conenctions. However, there are numerous reasons why and situations where certain types of data should be given priority over other types. For instance, if Sir Tim were in LA undergoing surgery using a robot remotely controlled from NYC, I doubt he would want the high-bandwidth data controlling that robot to be treated as equal to the high-bandwidth data streaming a YouTube video into a patient’s waiting room. Feel free to stop by out site for more info: http://www.handsoff.org. Thanks!

  4. October 5th, 2006 at 8:06 am
    ME Strauss said

    HandsOff,
    I’m glad you enjoy reading my updates, but this is the last comment I pass without the following information. A real person’s name and a valid email address that I might correspond with. I don’t like getting comments from organizations. I’m a relationship blogger and relationships happen between people. So therefore I will be blocking your organizational address.

    I’m emailing this comment to you so that you know.
    Liz

  5. October 5th, 2006 at 9:07 am
    Rick Cockrum said

    I’m admittedly vague about the issues involved in the net neutrality discussion. All sides appear to me to have complicated it beyond all reason.

    Looking at things as an end user, from what I can see about the way things work in the US now, both ends currently pay for the amount of bandwidth they have. If you want more bandwidth, you pay for it. If you want to receive data faster, you pay for it. If you want to send data out faster, you pay for it. The telecom and cable companies are already receiving money from both ends. The arguments their representatives put forth seem designed increase their income even further.

    Re the robot surgery - this argument just seems specious. The hospital’s internal network can determine what’s important and what isn’t. Or put the OR on a dedicated line.

    Am I misguided and confused?

  6. October 5th, 2006 at 9:09 am
    ME Strauss said

    No, actually Rick, I think you see right though the Handson, org argument very clearly. With or without glasses, it’s just a detail that doesn’t seem to fit the big story at all.

  7. October 5th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
    Melissa Petri said

    haha am so happy for you.

    fine, fine. still adjusting to life with 2 kids :-)

  8. October 5th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Two Kids!
    I could barely deal with one and a husband! But then my friend, KB, says every married woman is a single parent. ;)

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!