net neutrality thoughts

[Alan Dayley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

eric© wrote:
> Just running things over in my head....I'm not pushing for or against it
> right now, just trying to better understand it. 
>  
> How is non-neutrality any different than the tiered system we have now? 
> The more money you pay, the faster UL/DL speeds you get.  Sounds the
> same to me as "the more money the business pays, the faster access they
> get".  Also sounds similar to "the more money you pay, the better
> location in the mall you get". 
>  
> Again, I'm not saying the corporations right, I'm not saying they're
> wrong.  Just trying to better understand things. 

First

Go watch and listen to Lessig's presentation:

http://www.linuxworld.com/events/keynotes/lwsf06-lessig.html

Second

Make sure you watch the presentation.  Really.  If anyone can't download
it or get to it, I'll be happy to burn a DVD or setup a special meeting
where we all watch it and talk about it.

Third

An analogy which, like all analogies, is not perfect.  But, work with me...

Suppose you started a delivery company with you and your pickup truck.
You get a package from a customer and deliver it to the specified
destination.  You use local roads and the freeways to get this done.
And, depending on the traffic, you usually get it done on time.

Your business grows and so you need to move more packages at a time.
You buy another truck.  And then a bigger truck.  Or two.  And then Many
trucks.   These all drive on the roads that UPS and FedEx and DHL and
Knight Transportation use.  You all deliver stuff on the same roads and
highways.  If you need to deliver more stuff, you buy more trucks.

Now go back in time to just you and your truck starting your business.
This time, as you are getting started, the government, to stimulate
innovation and efficiency in the shipping business, builds extra lanes
on major artery streets and on the freeways.  If you pay a premium
subscription fee to the Federal Enhanced Shipping Department, you are
allowed to drive your trucks in these special lanes for shipping only.
UPS and FedEx and the rest pay the fee and get to use these special
lanes, bypassing all traffic jams.

The monthly fee is far more than you and your one truck can make in an
entire year.  So, maybe you make enough to stay in business but most
choose not to use your service now that is now slower than the big guys.
 You have a huge barrier to grow any larger, if you ever will.

Take this to an Internet business.  If your little business is
successful, you buy a larger connection (more trucks).  And if you grow
you buy an even larger connection (bigger trucks).  Now the "information
highway" owners want to charge extra for special bandwidth reserved for
specific uses.  Your business can be locked out by larger competitors
who can afford to pay the extra fee.

Another story using the shipping analogy but attempting to better match
the situation and fill in a hole with the first one above...

When I ship a package via FedEx, I can pay for the sipping or I can have
FedEx bill the recipient.  We don't both pay for the same service.  What
if I shipped the package via FedEx ground and then FedEx called the
recipient and told them they could get the package sooner if they paid
again for higher service?

Right now the pricing model of the Internet is that I pay for my access.
 If I want faster or more access, I pay more.  The sites I want to visit
pay for their access.  Without net neutrality, my ISP could charge the
sites I want to visit to allowing me to visit them.  In essence they
would be paid twice for the same connection.  And the ISP would be in
control of what information I can access and what I cannot.

We would be back to the CompuServe/AOL/Prodigy and BBS system where you
get the services your ISP provides and nothing more.  Back then my
employer got me a CompuServe account because that was where the
Microsoft forums were.  Any other online account did not have access to
the Microsoft forums.  That business model failed as soon as general
Internet services were available.  Removing net neutrality is the means
to force it to work.  To force consumers to pay extra and force
companies to pay for access to the consumers.

I'm rambling now.  Lessig does a much better job explaining this.  Did
you watch his video yet?  ;^)

My analogies are imperfect, mostly because the way the Internet works is
not like the way anything else works, ever.  I have been trying to come
up with a good way to explain net neutrality to a non-technical person.
 The above is what I have so far but I still don't like it.  Drive
trucks through the holes at will.  I am perfectly willing to learn.

Fourth

Go watch the Lessig video now.

Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFhz8ZDQw/VSQuFZYRAkcEAJ9TLxanS8X/uGadrYuQ2rpAYeLDtACeIPVr
2sZKP4pR6mQaNBH7QcgSNVQ=
=HSh4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----