more on Another Net Neutrality question...

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: June 1, 2006 2:00:47 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Another Net Neutrality question...

[for IP, if you wish]

Good job spotting this trend, Hiawatha.  We have seen the future and  
it is private networks?

Remember that old maxim that the Internet sees censorship as a  
network outage and routes around it?  Well, how about a new maxim:  
network operators will see legal constraints on the traditional  
Internet as a flaw and they will build around it?

Let's call it the Othernet.  And will somebody please tell me how we  
got here?

Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: [IP] Another Net Neutrality question...


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: h_bray () globe com
> Date: June 1, 2006 11:15:37 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Another Net Neutrality question...
>
> ...this one asked in my role as tech reporter.  I'm doing a story  
> on the
> matter.  It'll be straight down the middle, no sides taken.  But   
> there's an
> aspecr of this issue that I haven't seen addressed, and I'm hoping the
> hypersmart people on the list can tidy it up for me.
>
> We keep talking about a two-tiered Internet.  I may have helped   
> establish
> that meme with a story I did on this issue a couple months ago.   
> But is
> that really what's happening?  Can't one just as easily argue that the
> "premium" broadband tier isn't really the Internet at all?
>
> Imagine that Verizon, without using the "I" word, had decided to  
> build a
> new high-speed private data network to millions of homes.  They'd  
> use this
> network to carry TV signals, as well as a variety of computer data
> services.  The network would use TCP/IP technology, but would run  
> entirely
> over Verizon's prvately owned hardware.
>
> If Verizon had done such a thing, would anyone argue that the  
> company  was
> obligated to share this network with others, without charging them  
> usage
> fees?  Wouldn't we shrug and say that since Verizon spent the billions
> needed to build the network, they could do with it as they pleased?
>
> But this is pretty much what's happening now, isn't it?  This  
> second  tier
> of Internet service is really more like a private network.  It's  
> not so
> much a bifurcation of the Internet, but a complete departure from it.
> Looked at that way, why shouldn't the broadband providers charge  
> use  fees
> to other data services?
>
>
>
>
> Hiawatha Bray
> Technology Reporter
> Boston Globe
> 135 Morrissey Blvd.
> P.O. Box 55819
> Boston, MA 02205-5819 USA
> 617-929-3119 voice
> 617-929-3183 fax
> 617-233-9419 cell
> bray () globe com
> watha () monitortan com
> Recent writings: www.boston.com/business/technology/bray
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/