NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Consumption Based Broadband
When you allow a "managed" or "special" service e.g., IPTV over FTTN or cellular voice over HSPA or EVDO, it's only managed or special if it gets delivery guarantees. Google says managed services should be permitted but it shouldn't get more priority over Internet content. But if it doesn't get priority, then it's not a managed service. This is effectively double speak. To say you're in favor of managed/special services only if they're not managed or special is disingenuous and deceptive. If you want to argue that network owners operating managed prioritized services on infrastructure that they pay hundreds of billions for each year are "patently evil", that's your prerogative and you have to be able to defend that "logic" on an intellectual level. To try and have it both ways is intellectually cowardly. George -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Keith Dawson Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:33 PM To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Consumption Based Broadband > What sort of laws are in place that would prevent such an arrangement? > Is this covered by the proposed NN regulations? That is indeed the question, isn't it? From yesterday's NY Times coverage [*] of the FCC's action: [*] http://is.gd/4y7M7 [ bits.blogs.nytimes.com ] Mr. Genachowski, however, offered more questions than answers on what may be the biggest philosophical debate: whether a telecommunications company can give preference to services it offers over those of rivals. Communications companies want to offer services that take advantage of some of the capacity or features of their networks. This might be offering Internet video services, improved voice mail or text-messaging, or faster connections to Internet sites that pay for speedy service. The commission simply asked for comment on how to define what it calls "managed services" and what rules should apply to them. On this issue, Michael J. Copps, one of the Democratic commissioners, argued that Internet service providers should not be able to favor their own products over others. "The Internet must never be about powerful gatekeepers and walled gardens," he said. "It must always be about the smoothest possible flow of communications among people." But Mr. McDowell [Republican FCC commissioner] said that such rules would deny consumers the benefits of better services. "Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well." In other words, the action that appears to those of us on the pro-NN side of the debate to be the most clearly and patently evil of all, to those on the anti-NN side seems to be simply good common sense. -- KDawson