The ExaFlood
Here’s a pretty cool video from the FTTH Council - on the need for real broadband - 100 Mbps into the home.Its a nice viral pitch and campaign, though I did detect a slight hint of “vendors will have to pay extra for better service”. Their argument is that consumers shouldn’t have to pay anything more - just get 10x more bandwidth for the same price.
I totally agree with that. But it would have been nice that on this video - they would have specifically come out and say “Net Neutrality is important” and the folks who own the fiber can’t get away with offering their content and servcies over special pipes - while leaving the rest of us to do with what we have.
In other words - this video could be a wolf’s in sheep’s clothing.
It was sent to me by a friend who works for a Telco.
I wonder what the ‘real’ reason is behind this video?
Yeah, very cool video, but the politics at the end were a bit of a turnoff. Is there really a problem with continuing paying for the net’s infrastructure the usual way — i.e. everyone who wants to connect pays for their pipe at market rates, with new high-speed options coming out costing a fortune at first, then eventually becoming affordable to all? Faster doesn’t have to mean more expensive… I mean, stuff gets cheaper over time anyway, so…
Yeah, very cool video, but the politics at the end were a bit of a turnoff. Is there really a problem with continuing paying for the net’s infrastructure the usual way — i.e. everyone who wants to connect pays for their pipe at market rates, with new high-speed options coming out costing a fortune at first, then eventually becoming affordable to all? Faster doesn’t have to mean more expensive… I mean, stuff gets cheaper over time anyway, so…
Yeah, very cool video, but the politics at the end were a bit of a turnoff. Is there really a problem with continuing paying for the net’s infrastructure the usual way — i.e. everyone who wants to connect pays for their pipe at market rates, with new high-speed options coming out costing a fortune at first, then eventually becoming affordable to all? Faster doesn’t have to mean more expensive… I mean, stuff gets cheaper over time anyway, so…
I agree with the video. If keeping a small portion of the pipe for premium video services means that the rest of us can get 100 MBPS I think that makes sense. The key thing right now is making sure that we get new capacity; we get the speed we need; it is affordable to everyone and availabel to everyone. Check out http://www.speedmatters.org for suggestions on public policy to make it happen.
I agree with the video. If keeping a small portion of the pipe for premium video services means that the rest of us can get 100 MBPS I think that makes sense. The key thing right now is making sure that we get new capacity; we get the speed we need; it is affordable to everyone and availabel to everyone. Check out http://www.speedmatters.org for suggestions on public policy to make it happen.
I agree with the video. If keeping a small portion of the pipe for premium video services means that the rest of us can get 100 MBPS I think that makes sense. The key thing right now is making sure that we get new capacity; we get the speed we need; it is affordable to everyone and availabel to everyone. Check out http://www.speedmatters.org for suggestions on public policy to make it happen.
As someone who has been following the net neutrality debate in my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, IMO this video does a great job of concisely highlighting may of the relevant components of the debate.
The video addressed the net neutrality issue by warning against artificial barriers to investment and innovation . . . like “net neutrality” legislation (ie Snowe-Dorgan). They are correct in noting that an old woman who checks email twice a week shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the teenager streaming
video 16 hours a day downloading HD movies. As proposed net neutrality legislation would prevent innovation, investment, and the ability to efficiently manage the networks, leaving us with a dumb internet.
This is the sentiment echoed in warnings from some of the most senior network engineers such as Robert Kahn. As this Guardian article notes,
“The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today’s private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as ‘traffic shaping’ that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.
Even worse was the long-term chilling effect. Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.
Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it’s a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.’The internet has never been neutral,” explains Crowcroft. “Without traffic shaping, we won’t get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we’ve seen in data and telephony.’”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html
As someone who has been following the net neutrality debate in my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, IMO this video does a great job of concisely highlighting may of the relevant components of the debate.
The video addressed the net neutrality issue by warning against artificial barriers to investment and innovation . . . like “net neutrality” legislation (ie Snowe-Dorgan). They are correct in noting that an old woman who checks email twice a week shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the teenager streaming
video 16 hours a day downloading HD movies. As proposed net neutrality legislation would prevent innovation, investment, and the ability to efficiently manage the networks, leaving us with a dumb internet.
This is the sentiment echoed in warnings from some of the most senior network engineers such as Robert Kahn. As this Guardian article notes,
“The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today’s private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as ‘traffic shaping’ that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.
Even worse was the long-term chilling effect. Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.
Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it’s a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.’The internet has never been neutral,” explains Crowcroft. “Without traffic shaping, we won’t get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we’ve seen in data and telephony.’”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html
As someone who has been following the net neutrality debate in my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, IMO this video does a great job of concisely highlighting may of the relevant components of the debate.
The video addressed the net neutrality issue by warning against artificial barriers to investment and innovation . . . like “net neutrality” legislation (ie Snowe-Dorgan). They are correct in noting that an old woman who checks email twice a week shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the teenager streaming
video 16 hours a day downloading HD movies. As proposed net neutrality legislation would prevent innovation, investment, and the ability to efficiently manage the networks, leaving us with a dumb internet.
This is the sentiment echoed in warnings from some of the most senior network engineers such as Robert Kahn. As this Guardian article notes,
“The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today’s private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as ‘traffic shaping’ that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.
Even worse was the long-term chilling effect. Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.
Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it’s a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.’The internet has never been neutral,” explains Crowcroft. “Without traffic shaping, we won’t get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we’ve seen in data and telephony.’”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html