On 1/15/14, 9:30 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/article/gadgets/what-know-about-net-neutrality-ruling?src=SOC&dom=fb
Do we want to pay more for a commons, to foster access and innovation?
Is it progressive to give a competitive advantage to big companies that
can pay more? Of course, Amazon and Google can already afford to have
dedicated fiber and their own private but global networks. This is not
just a technical question of employing protocol extensions for TCP/IP.
This is a People question of what serves the greater good. For example,
safety and security situations (Owen's surgery-by-wire) could have FCC
authorization for higher bandwidth and lower latency using QOS
extensions. Meanwhile, the _law_ could insist that it is Comcast or
Century Link's problem to pass on the costs to Netflix and Hulu users so
as to ensure their backbone networks have adequate capacity. Comcast,
for example, would no doubt like to compensate in their profits from
losses to internet-based entertainment. But I would rather pay more for
my internet connection, and not be held hostage on entertainment
services -- HBO Go instead of Comcast's resale of it.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
