In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:39:56 +0100
<4161491.ytDmvXUDI8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I bit off-topic, I know, but it deals with freedom taken away, as well as
> disinformatiom.
>
> Net Neutrality: This is serious
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now,
> | hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that
> | that is going end in the USA.
> |
> | I blogged on net neutrality before, and so did a lot of other people.
> | (see e.g. Danny Weitzner, SaveTheInternet.com, etc.) Since then, some
> | telecommunications companies spent a lot of money on public relations and
> | TV ads, and the US House seems to have wavered from the path of preserving
> | net neutrality. There has been some misinformation spread about.
> `----
>
> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/
I wonder about net neutrality myself. On the one hand,
it could be a significant source of revenue for ISPs,
ASPs, and MSPs (media). Pay a little extra, and the
packets from that Desirable Web Site With The Interesting
Content(tm) are expedited. Don't pay extra, and one gets
routed through the one router with the dodgy power supply
that the service guy dropped on his foot then stepped on
while hopping in response to the pain, then installed it
anyway since it wasn't too badly dented. (Presumably,
they know where it is. The user doesn't, although with
traceroute[6] he might know its name/path.)
On the other hand...well, there is no other hand. Without
net neutrality the 'Net gets a lot more complicated.
I guess that's normal, though; time was when one could
simply hop in a horseless carriage and drive any whichaway,
but nowadays one has to ensure that one's car is properly
licensed, and obey the Rules of the Road(tm). But it does
put up a barrier to entry for new firms, and new ideas.
And then there's the snits. Level3 and Cogent were going
at it for awhile, resulting in disruptions of service
for those customers using either service directly or
indirectly. Suppose Internet Provider A didn't like
the "extra cost" header packets tacked on by Internet
Provider B? Could get...interesting.
There's a separate issue as well, though as yet no one's
really touched on it. As you well know, Internet commerce
is generally tax free (presumably, it's up to the user
to figure out what amounts to send where but the states
rarely prosecute -- not enough data). I could envision --
and in fact already specified, to some extent, in a Usenet
post which I'd have to find -- a system whereby both users
and merchants would be required to register their positions
(using GPS coordinates and the like) and merchants and tax
authorities register with a Federal database which keeps
track of sales taxes everywhere in the US: 8% here, 8.25%
over there, 9.50% in that area since they voted in a tax
increase two years back, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Or some such.
And then there's VoIP, which makes terms such as LEC,
CLEC, and POTS quaint.
Welcome to the New World Order on the Internet Tollway(tm).
Please make sure to have exact change handy.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
