It very well could be complete garbage. And at the very least, the part about them slipping it past Canadians with little fanfare is obviously never going to happen. But it makes sense financially. And usually corporations like to make money.
There's also this, if that first article wasn't mongering enough fear: http://digg.com/tech_news/2012_The_Year_The_Internet_Ends If and when the Time article comes out, we'll see if they really have sources from those top Telco's. As a poster on another list I'm on states: "did you believe it when you first heard at&t had special rooms to share all packets with the feds? i had a tough time with that one, yet it was proven to be true, for all the major us telcos except quest." On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information recession, but it's not the end of the world. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage <http://wreckandsalvage.com> / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed. Sorry Adam but that article was garbage. No references and > pure fear mongering. As i read Jay's first post I thought about how > we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net > neutrality. Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy > video? Anyone who's ever tried to do some work at 10 PM in a business > traveler's hotel understands how detrimental a lack of network > management can be. While some guests are downloading films over bit > torrent, others are waiting 30 minutes just to check their email. > > Network management isn't going to go away. It's useful for multiple > reasons. The primary reason being customer satisfaction. However, > rules that discourage anti-competitiveness are necessary. Obviously > ISP shouldn't be aloud to completely block content, only modify it's > priority. i.e. Prioritize VOIP packets while delaying bittorrent > packets. The best solution I can imagine would be in the form of > network management transparency with the public or a government > agency. > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They try this, they won't know what hit them. > > > > I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because > > Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated. Not > > my experience of Canada so far. They might seem laid back, but poke > > them with a stick and they're like hornets. And people here seem > > more reliant on the internet for communication and information than > > those in countries with greater population density. > > > > Britain would be a better test case. People are less gung ho about > > new technology & computers there. Except there are 1000s of ISPs, > > and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies. > > > > And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet > > access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to > > open it up so they could compete with Vodafone & O2. AOL died in the > > UK for much the same reason. > > > > Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work. Where > > I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively > > with both rival ADSL & Cable services available to most households. > > Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of > > their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: > > > > Another doomsday scenario: > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm > > > > *Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage <http://wreckandsalvage.com> / > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still > > worry.....they may > >> > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are > > paying > >> > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner, > >> > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith > >> > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only > >> > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen > >> > content.... > >> > >> yeah...I probably spoke too soon: > >> > >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned- > > cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html > >> > >> Jay > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://jaydedman.com > >> 917 371 6790 > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
