funsec mailing list archives
Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality
From: Greg Poirier <grep () reflexsecurity com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:41:45 -0400
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 19:09 +0100, Drsolly wrote:
No - if I buy 1 megabit, I don't really expect to get more than 1 megabit, even though it means that when my pipe is saturated, access to my server will get slower.
Content providers are paying for bandwidth directly to their upstream provider with no guarantee of symmetric availability at any given end-point. That's how things are, it's fair, it's expected. Not everyone has a 1Mb connection to teh intarweb. An interesting analogy would be if Microsoft purposefully didn't allow competing browsers to be installed on Windows unless those competing browsers paid compilation fees. Your software will compile once you give us any sum of money we ask for. The only problem with this analogy is that in the case of the internet, there's no switching to Linux.
I'm still having trouble understanding this whole issue. If its about banning discriminatory pricing, then it flies in the face of all normal commercial practice. You simply do not charge everyone the same price. For example, people who buy big volume, usually get offered a better price.
While I don't support government regulation of commerce, I do think this is pretty crumby. It seems like a restructuring of the way bandwidth pricing currently works. In the New World, you will not only have to pay for bandwidth to your upstream provider, but also for all of the ISPs who deliver the content to their customers, assuming you are selling products or services in competition with theirs. This is a new paradigm in Internet operation and opens the doors for larger companies to effectively shut down any competitor by killing its access to the consumer. My problem with this is that someone like EarthLink, who purchases most of its connectivity for its customers from LECs like Bells, would be impacted by Bell South's filtering: EarthLink customers may very well be unable to access services that they pay for because they have been resold Bell South DSL. -- Greg Poirier | Reflex Security, Inc. Sigma Team | Network Security. Simplified.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Fergie (May 02)
- RE: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Blanchard_Michael (May 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Fergie (May 02)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Dude VanWinkle (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Greg Poirier (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Drsolly (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Greg Poirier (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Drsolly (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Greg Poirier (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Dude VanWinkle (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Greg Poirier (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Dude VanWinkle (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Brian Loe (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Dude VanWinkle (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Kevin McAleavey (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Drsolly (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Brian Loe (May 03)
- Message not available
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Kevin McAleavey (May 03)
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Brian Loe (May 03)
- Message not available
- Re: U.S. Finance Sector Weighs In on Net Neutrality Kevin McAleavey (May 03)