|
|
Posted by Jeremy on 06/20/06 01:48
Wells,
This is not about regulating the net, but preventing backbone companies
and ISPs (eg Verizon, MCI/UUNet) from throttling bandwith to other
companies or services.
The bill basically would prevent ccompanies such as Verizon, who is
partnered with Microsoft (MSN), from giving preferential bandwith or
higher speed to MSN services like MSN Search or Urge over Google or
iTunes, with whom MS is competeing with.
Imagine this, MS goes into a contract with Verizon to get the best
speeds for its services and its competitors would be relegated to a
second tier service that limited access speeds.
Here are three scenarios using Verizon FiOS Service (15Mb to 200Mb fibre
optic based internet service for home and business):
1. Everytime you went to use Google to search the web, the results came
back at dialup speed while MSN Search's results came back with at the
full speed of the connection.
2. The Urge service from MS could download a whole movie or album almost
instantly while Apple's iTunes would take hours.
3. You go to download a linux distro or open office and find that there
will be an 80 hour wait, while Windows Live and office Live are right
there and willing to run.
Which service would you choose? Probably the faster service, at the
detriment of the others.
That is what they mean by net neutrality, everyone has the same level of
access.
Jeremy
Wells wrote:
> Debate Simmering in US Over Regulation of Internet
>
> A heated debate is shaping up in Washington about a concept some
> activists are calling Internet network neutrality, known more popularly
> as net neutrality. At issue are calls for the U.S. government to
> regulate the Internet, and, in effect, opponents say, determine which
> companies get bigger shares of the profits.
>
> To read the full text, please go to:
> http://www.contactomagazine.com/internetdebate0606.htm
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|