[ NNSquad ] Re: NYTimes: Metering the Internet

[Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>]

As a theoretical, let's postulate that ISPs are free to use whatever
"traffic management" techniques that they wish without "interference"
from the government or "network neutrality advocates."  Let's assume
that they can block ports, block protocols, slow down protocols that
they claim are abusive, and all the rest.

Now, does anyone out there *really* believe that the big ISPs
wouldn't move ahead with their bandwidth cap plans anyway, especially
those ISPs with their own (non-capped) video content to promote?

Note that Brett, with his tiny, bandwidth-strapped WISP that doesn't
run its own video content distribution service, appears to hate the
idea of caps.  

Yet the big ISPs, who not only pay a hell of a lot less for
bandwidth and who also have the resources to easily expand -- but
increasingly have video content that they want their subscribers to
buy into -- are the ones who all of the sudden are so hot for
bandwidth caps "to save their networks."  Their stampede to bandwidth
caps just doesn't pass the smell test.

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator

  - - -

Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:05 AM 9/18/2008, Bob Frankston wrote:
>  
> >The telling phrase is "cover 95% of their customers". 
> >
> >Imagine the US First Amendment modified to protect your right to say
> >anything you want provide 95% of the people approve and are already saying
> >it.
> 
> Not analogous.
> 
> >If there were competitive marketplace it would be one thing 
> 
> There is. There are more than 4,000 competitive wireless ISPs And this 
> doesn't even include the wired ones. 
> 
> >but as long as a carriers are given control over our First Amendment rights 
> 
> As Lauren points out, Bob (and this is one of the very few points on which
> I agree with him), the First Amendment applies to the government and your 
> relationship with it, not to private parties. That's why it begins
> with the words, "Congress shall make no law."
> 
> At 02:45 PM 9/18/2008, Barry Gold wrote:
> 
> >It may be true that "all you can eat" is no longer a viable business model, 
> 
> It isn't if there are no rules at the buffet. "All you can eat" buffets have 
> rules: No sneaking food out to others; eat everything you take; you can't
> stay all day; you can't raid the kitchen. Our ISP would much rather impose
> restrictions that implicitly limit the amount that users consume (just as a
> buffet relies on your stomach having a maximum capacity) rather than
> imposing penalties. Unfortunately, advocates of "network neutrality" are
> attempting to prohibit this. If they succeed, there will be no more "all
> you can eat;" that business model will effectively have been outlawed.
> 
> >What's the answer?  I don't know.  Maybe they can just reallocate resources and increase prices a little.  Maybe they need to go to "plan A: 3MB/sec, 100GB/
> month," "Plan B: 4.5 MB/sec, 200 GB/month", etc.  If you exceed your limit, they either slow you way down or cut off your access to everything except email (
> through their server) and http to their own websites, where you can ask why you can't reach the rest of the world and be told why.
> 
> All unfriendly options. We don't see our customers as our enemies. They
> love us because the bill is the same every month; no surprises. And they
> value that far more than they value being able to squander expensive
> bandwidth.
> 
> --Brett Glass 
>