[ NNSquad ] Re: Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality"

[Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>]

George,

I think that there is acceptance that charging more for more capacity
(bits/sec) but that differential charging for priority, regardless of
the type of traffic (eg real time, low delay or file transfer, or
...), could lead to anti-competitive consequences in which established
competitors might prevent new competitors from gaining adequate access
simply by consuming available capacity at high priority to squeeze out
the competition.

vint



On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:47 PM, George Ou <george_ou@lanarchitect.net> wrote:
> "You pay your service provider a fixed charge, and it mostly keeps no eye on
> who you connect to, or who connects to you. In a non-neutral world, the ISP
> could block your access to a popular website until you paid an extra fee
> (like extra satellite or cable channels)"
>
> That is clearly a clueless and misleading statement for anyone that's even
> semi up to date on the actual policy debate.  The FCC's net neutrality
> proposal actually doesn't prohibit broadband providers for charging
> customers for higher priority; it prohibits broadband providers from
> offering "enhanced or prioritized" services to content/app/service providers
> on a truly voluntary basis.  That's the real sticking point that many
> reasonable people have a problem with.
>
>
>
> George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
> [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
> Lauren Weinstein
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 AM
> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality"
>
>
> Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality"
>
> http://bit.ly/bm2rw7  (Irish Times)
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator
>
>