3 Comments
- mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Andrew Cantor has missed the point entirely. Net neutrality is an interesting idea, but it's a red herring in this context. The debate shouldn't be about "fast lanes" and "slow lanes", or even whether or not telecoms can degrade the performance of competing content providers. It should be about preventing them from unfairly charging a third time for bandwidth that has already been paid for twice, once by the content provider and once by the end-user. For instance, say I watch a video on Youtube. I pay a monthly fee to my provider for my DSL line, which includes the bandwidth usage to watch the video. Youtube also pays their provider for the outgoing bandwidth for that video. The actual data transfer in this scenario has been paid for twice, by the parties at both ends of the transfer. Now, the big telecoms want to charge Youtube again for that same bandwidth, claiming that having bandwidth paid for only twice constitutes a "free lunch" for Youtube. The telecoms are trying to convince us that content providers are getting something for free, and it's a flat out lie.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I disagree with him, but what he says makes quite a bit of sense, and I like reading about things that I disagree with, it gives me something more to think with when making my own choices. Dugg.
- Hashim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I spelled his name wrong. It's "Kantor". How do I edit these things?


What is Digg?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official