Comments on: Building a better Internet http://bennett.com/blog/2006/10/building-a-better-internet/ A regular old blog Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:51:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: d.l. http://bennett.com/blog/2006/10/building-a-better-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-358089 d.l. Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:02:07 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/10/23/building-a-better-internet/#comment-358089 It is odd that the legislation pushed by net neutrality supporters takes the view that QoS for a fee should be banned, rather than simply taking the traditional common carrier approach of saying that there should be no unreasonable discrimination in QoS charges. It may suggest that the supposed proponents of net neutrality were more interested in a poison pill to kill video franchise reform than in actually accomplishing anything useful on net neutrality. It is odd that the legislation pushed by net neutrality supporters takes the view that QoS for a fee should be banned, rather than simply taking the traditional common carrier approach of saying that there should be no unreasonable discrimination in QoS charges. It may suggest that the supposed proponents of net neutrality were more interested in a poison pill to kill video franchise reform than in actually accomplishing anything useful on net neutrality.

]]> By: Richard http://bennett.com/blog/2006/10/building-a-better-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-358076 Richard Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:09:02 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/10/23/building-a-better-internet/#comment-358076 Do you have arguments to go with your assertions, or do we have to take them on faith? For example: 1. The net neutrality regulations proposed to Congress this year are totally without precedent in US law or in the architecture of the Internet: the QoS-for-fee ban, in particular. What's your counter-evidence? 2. The Internet has stimulated innovation of a certain narrow type, that's for sure. Is that the best we can do? 3. Is there any reason to believe that the US' position in broadband penetration isn't due (at least in part) to the zeal of our regulators? 4. Korea bans VoIP on its broadband network unless it's provided by the network's operator/owner. Doesn't this make your argument that foreigners are doing better than we are sort of wither up and die? Do you have arguments to go with your assertions, or do we have to take them on faith? For example:

1. The net neutrality regulations proposed to Congress this year are totally without precedent in US law or in the architecture of the Internet: the QoS-for-fee ban, in particular. What’s your counter-evidence?

2. The Internet has stimulated innovation of a certain narrow type, that’s for sure. Is that the best we can do?

3. Is there any reason to believe that the US’ position in broadband penetration isn’t due (at least in part) to the zeal of our regulators?

4. Korea bans VoIP on its broadband network unless it’s provided by the network’s operator/owner. Doesn’t this make your argument that foreigners are doing better than we are sort of wither up and die?

]]> By: Richard Brandt http://bennett.com/blog/2006/10/building-a-better-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-358066 Richard Brandt Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:30:20 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/10/23/building-a-better-internet/#comment-358066 You're right, the argument should be over utility, not virtue. But I don't think net neutrality is good just because it's virtuous. It also encourages other entrepreneurs to use the Internet to start businesses. That's good for the U.S. economy. Ending network neutrality will not necessarily increase fiber to the home. The telcos have dragged their feet every step of the way in the bid to increase bandwidth to homes. I believe other companies, perhaps even including Google in an alliance with a newer telco, will make it happen because it makes it easier for them to offer services like VoIP on the Internet. There's a reason the U.S. is so far behind in providing good Internet access. The telcos are lazy, too long protected by monopoly. Now they want to expand that monopoly. Is that the best way to get good service from them? Other countries with Internet access superior to ours have done it with government help. They did not do it by giving their telcos exclusive rights to determine who sends data through phone lines. We need government help in order to make this happen, as well as network neutrality and universal access. So tax Internet revenues, tax Google to pay for it. But don't let the telcos decide who pays how much for access. You’re right, the argument should be over utility, not virtue. But I don’t think net neutrality is good just because it’s virtuous. It also encourages other entrepreneurs to use the Internet to start businesses. That’s good for the U.S. economy.

Ending network neutrality will not necessarily increase fiber to the home. The telcos have dragged their feet every step of the way in the bid to increase bandwidth to homes. I believe other companies, perhaps even including Google in an alliance with a newer telco, will make it happen because it makes it easier for them to offer services like VoIP on the Internet.

There’s a reason the U.S. is so far behind in providing good Internet access. The telcos are lazy, too long protected by monopoly. Now they want to expand that monopoly. Is that the best way to get good service from them?

Other countries with Internet access superior to ours have done it with government help. They did not do it by giving their telcos exclusive rights to determine who sends data through phone lines. We need government help in order to make this happen, as well as network neutrality and universal access. So tax Internet revenues, tax Google to pay for it. But don’t let the telcos decide who pays how much for access.

]]>