One mistake the article makes is to lump YouTube and Joost into a single category. YouTube, AFAIK, is paying for the bandwidth to pump out all that video, one stream per view. Joost is P2P, with reportedly heavy bandwidth demands, potentially even when you are not actually viewing (if they use Skype-style supernodes - I haven't seen any mention of this yet). P2P applications are very good at shifting the bandwidth burden from the content supplier to "the network" at large. I can understand why the bandwidth providers are upset.
On 2/2/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > < > > http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/30/info-traffic-jams-oped-cx_pk_0131network.html > > > > Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research told the Senate Commerce Committee > last > > year that any telecom company that made a major infrastructure > investment > > under a network neutrality regime would see its stock nosedive. Moffett > > estimated that the bandwidth for an average TV viewer would cost > carriers > > $112 per month. A high-definition TV viewer would cost $560. Unless the > > YouTubes and Joosts of the world are willing (and legally permitted) to > pay > > some of those costs, the investments are unlikely to happen. > > > > If network neutrality proponents have their way the Internet may be frozen > > in time, an information superhighway with Los Angeles-like traffic > delays. > > The Internet doesn't need to be saved--it needs to keep getting better. > > > > Thoughts on this article? > > -- > Sull > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
