-
“Specifically, by provisioning big bandwidth downstream and narrow
bandwidth upstream, while blocking ports 25 and 80–in crass violation
of the Net’s UNIX-derived network model, in addition to the end-to-end
principle–the carriers prevent customers from running their own mail
and Web servers and whatever server-based businesses might be possible.”For server-based businesses, there’s business-grade connection. Most people – the vast, vast, majority – WANT big bandwidth downstream. In the above, you make it sound like some sort of an imposition. If there is a constraint – i.e. if a choice has to be made – are you really advocating that people must by mandate have half their connection reserved for upstream they don’t want to to use, again, per assumption, in contrast for what they do want? That would be like saying all books must have half their pages blank, in case readers want to write their own book (reading a book is so passive – we might be writers instead!)
I’m on Google’s side of NN on economic grounds. But the above sort of utopian social vision supposedly manifested via low-level network configuration strikes me as almost literal voodoo politics.
-
Doc, yes, there’s been advancement from several years ago. But my main point is that you seemed to be taking a particular product that was engineered for a specific market – consumer download – and reading too many implications into the fact that product was not some other product, for server businesses.
Think of the FCC proposal as a negotiated treaty between three rival powers (Google, Verizon, AT&T). Like any treaty, sometimes it’s deliberately ambiguous.
-
Nice! Just read your Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutering article from 2006. Amazing how little has changed!
Comments are now closed.
6 comments