Comments on: Net Net: Net Neutrality Takes A Blow

By: Nacho Hernandez

Nacho Hernandez — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:08:29 +0000

Here is Tim Burners-Lee's views on the topic:

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132

Saludos,

Nacho

By: Bernhard Seefeld

Bernhard Seefeld — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:16:08 +0000

Another naive question:

The telcos claim that while they have to pay for the infrastructure, the immensly profitable online advertising businesses get all the benefits. Or something like that.

On the hand, we look at maybe $15b online advertising in the US for this year. With 200 mio active users, that's just a little over six dollars per user and month. You know, to finance much of stuff the people want internet access in the first place.

I haven't checked the latest DSL prices, but I have a hard time identifying who unfairly profits from whom in such a krass way.

Just to spin the thing from a different perspective...

By: Roman

Roman — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:22:35 +0000

To James’ point, the government may change the rules, but between the two evils, the government is the one that can guarantee the network’s stability long-term. I think Vint Cerf and other “net neutrality” advocates understand this pretty well.

By: James Robertson

James Robertson — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:04:14 +0000

I posted about this here:

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&entry=3327518837

Bottom line - I don't think any of the "net neutrality" advocates have given any thought as to where federal regulations like this will end. Once they've regulated how the carriers have to handle traffic - i.e., as a "public utility" kind of thing - FCC style rules will follow.

If you think the government won't do that, then I'd call you very naive.