Comments on: Mike to Mike: Put Up or Shut Up http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/ Tracking the battle over Network Neutrality Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:32:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: ged http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-77465 ged Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:00:24 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-77465 <strong> ged ...</strong> http://www.geocities.jp/top8net/ged ged ... ged
…

http://www.geocities.jp/top8net/ged ged
…

]]> By: ftd http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-76359 ftd Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:43:05 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-76359 <strong> ftd ...</strong> http://www.geocities.jp/top15webs/ftd ftd ... ftd
…

http://www.geocities.jp/top15webs/ftd ftd
…

]]> By: timberland boots http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-74482 timberland boots Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:11:13 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-74482 <strong> timberland boots ...</strong> http://monolit.webng.com/timberland-boots timberland boots ... timberland boots
…

http://monolit.webng.com/timberland-boots timberland boots
…

]]> By: ged http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-74052 ged Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:31:29 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-74052 <strong> ged ...</strong> http://allweb.webng.com/ged ged ... ged
…

http://allweb.webng.com/ged ged
…

]]> By: buy wii http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-67050 buy wii Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:51:57 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-67050 <strong> buy wii ...</strong> http://webstore.webng.com/buy-wii buy wii ... buy wii
…

http://webstore.webng.com/buy-wii buy wii
…

]]> By: adt http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-65604 adt Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:04:30 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-65604 <strong> adt ...</strong> http://topsearch.ifrance.com/adt adt ... adt
…

http://topsearch.ifrance.com/adt adt
…

]]> By: Shell Game http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-2060 Shell Game Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:56:01 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-2060 Do I understand this correctly? I pay Comcast a really high amount of money each month to access the web. If I have a web site, AT&T wants me to pay for that, too? If this is correct, isn't this scenario sort of like a toll road/highway that you pay to get on and--surprise!--you pay to get off at the end of the road? You people that are sticking up for the likes of AT&T are either in the industry, or just plain clueless if you think these Telcos EVER did anything in the best interests of the little people. Do I understand this correctly? I pay Comcast a really high amount of money each month to access the web. If I have a web site, AT&T wants me to pay for that, too?

If this is correct, isn’t this scenario sort of like a toll road/highway that you pay to get on and–surprise!–you pay to get off at the end of the road?

You people that are sticking up for the likes of AT&T are either in the industry, or just plain clueless if you think these Telcos EVER did anything in the best interests of the little people.

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1946 Raz Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:04:08 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1946 ChadB - I re-read your first statement and I see that you were pointing out that the S/D amendment in no way prevents ISP's from using different pricing schemes for there customers. Your logic does tend to be impeccable so I should have re-read before responding. However, I still think that any arguments I have seen in support of the Telco's COPE act are red herring's. sylonious - I agree that the ISP duopoly needs to be rectified but I think passing S/D NN is the battle we should be fighting right now. Winning this battle will go a long ways towards winning this war that the duopoly has started. ChadB - I re-read your first statement and I see that you were pointing out that the S/D amendment in no way prevents ISP’s from using different pricing schemes for there customers. Your logic does tend to be impeccable so I should have re-read before responding.
However, I still think that any arguments I have seen in support of the Telco’s COPE act are red herring’s.

sylonious - I agree that the ISP duopoly needs to be rectified but I think passing S/D NN is the battle we should be fighting right now. Winning this battle will go a long ways towards winning this war that the duopoly has started.

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1939 Raz Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:38:02 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1939 ChadB - On what basis is a telco charging google this access/connection fee? Is the telco acting as google's ISP or are they simply charging them for the ability to access their "last mile" customers? If the latter then the ISP would have to block/degrade a residential customer's connection to google if google refused to pay the access fee. How else would the ISP get google to pay? Christopher Yoo's argument to allow ISP's to employ discriminatory QoS should not even be considered unless real competition exists among the ISP's rather then the duopoly we currently have. And there is lots of room for development/improvement of enhanced QoS and other protocols which are non-discriminatory. Technology should always be shaped according to whats best for the common man. Discriminatory QoS, no matter how many neat things the ISP's can do with it to make more money, is not supportive of an end-to-end internet which is the very foundation by which so much innovation and expanding communication has taken place. "Reduced social welfare from loss of product diversity" (i.e. duopoly) is the foundation from which the big telco's want to operate and they will do everything in their power to protect the status quo. Every argument the telco's have come up with has been little more then a red herring designed to confuse and lure us away from our common sense. To me it is just common sense that you don't give a duopoly even more power then they already have. ChadB - On what basis is a telco charging google this access/connection fee? Is the telco acting as google’s ISP or are they simply charging them for the ability to access their “last mile” customers? If the latter then the ISP would have to block/degrade a residential customer’s connection to google if google refused to pay the access fee. How else would the ISP get google to pay?

Christopher Yoo’s argument to allow ISP’s to employ discriminatory QoS should not even be considered unless real competition exists among the ISP’s rather then the duopoly we currently have. And there is lots of room for development/improvement of enhanced QoS and other protocols which are non-discriminatory. Technology should always be shaped according to
whats best for the common man. Discriminatory QoS, no matter how many neat things the ISP’s can do with it to make more money, is not supportive of an end-to-end internet which is the very foundation by which so much innovation and expanding communication has taken place.

“Reduced social welfare from loss of product diversity” (i.e. duopoly) is the foundation from which the big telco’s want to operate and they will do everything in their power to protect the status quo. Every argument the telco’s have come up with has been little more then a red herring designed to confuse and lure us away from our common sense. To me it is just common sense that you don’t give a duopoly even more power then they already have.

]]> By: ChadB http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1936 ChadB Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:16:33 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/08/01/mike-to-mike-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-1936 Raz, you have confused me. If a telco wanted to charge Google $30/month as an access/connection fee instead of a price based on bandwidth usage, the telco simply bills Google $30/month, no? Why would the telco have to "degrade" or "block" service? If Google doesn't pay, Google doesn't get service. S/D doesn't guarantee Google service, does it? (In this case, I am assuming that Google is a customer of the telco rather than an intermediary network owner passing Google's data through its network.) And I'm not sure all anti-net neutrality arguments are red herrings. Some opponents (e.g. Christoper Yoo) have argued that net neutrality regulation could commoditize broadband access services, preventing the development of diverse networks. Some could provide enhanced QoS; some could have enhanced security protocols; and some could continue openly with TCP/IP. Economic theory recognizes that a loss in product diversity can reduce social welfare, especially where consumer preferences are divergent. The S/D amendment would restrict the ability of network owners to diversify their networks, potentially decreasing consumer welfare. While there are potential countervailing social welfare benefits from net neutrality regulation (e.g. potentially greater innovation and diversity in Internet content and applications), there seems to be a trade-off. Do you disagree? Raz, you have confused me. If a telco wanted to charge Google $30/month as an access/connection fee instead of a price based on bandwidth usage, the telco simply bills Google $30/month, no? Why would the telco have to “degrade” or “block” service? If Google doesn’t pay, Google doesn’t get service. S/D doesn’t guarantee Google service, does it? (In this case, I am assuming that Google is a customer of the telco rather than an intermediary network owner passing Google’s data through its network.)

And I’m not sure all anti-net neutrality arguments are red herrings. Some opponents (e.g. Christoper Yoo) have argued that net neutrality regulation could commoditize broadband access services, preventing the development of diverse networks. Some could provide enhanced QoS; some could have enhanced security protocols; and some could continue openly with TCP/IP. Economic theory recognizes that a loss in product diversity can reduce social welfare, especially where consumer preferences are divergent. The S/D amendment would restrict the ability of network owners to diversify their networks, potentially decreasing consumer welfare. While there are potential countervailing social welfare benefits from net neutrality regulation (e.g. potentially greater innovation and diversity in Internet content and applications), there seems to be a trade-off. Do you disagree?

]]>