« Google -- Cashing Out on Net Neutrality? | Main | Unsavory and Shifty Ingrates »

December 15, 2008


but if that world is going to exist, it must include these types of non-discriminatory provisions.

It seems to me that, as far as the concerns you brought up in the other post go, this world already does exist.

For example, regardless of any agreements with specific telecoms, we know Google pays to operate dozens or hundreds of highly distributed server centers throughout the country (and the world). That's at least something of a latency and bandwidth advantage when delivering content to nearby customers, and an extra barrier to entry for an upstart looking to compete with say, Youtube.

I don't really see anything wrong with that. And by analogy I can't really see anything particularly wrong with buying similar delivery improvements from the telecoms. As you say, it'd just be important for any such service to have non-discriminatory pricing.

Lessig talks about "setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access" -- not about discriminating between different applications. I don't see anything supporting your interpretation that he favors a system in which "transporting video packets might cost more than email packets", but maybe I missed something.

But then I'm not really sure what "greater access" means.

I'm interpreting it as access to something like an express or priority pathway for packets you designate.

(Hence the analogy to shipping - if it's got to get there overnight, you pay extra for express. Otherwise, you stick with economy.)

KC - he makes that point in the FCC presentation he links to on his blog.

jack lecou - Akamai has been selling edge caching to anyone who wants to pay (at quite reasonable rates) for ages and they are not alone in that market. As long as ISPs offer co-lo to these vendors on a non-discriminatory basis, I don't see this as an issue.

Sorry, I haven't had time to watch all of the video (and don't know when I'm likely to). You're saying Lessig explicitly comes out in it in favor of discriminating on the basis of application (as opposed to discriminating on the basis of company, which he certainly thinks is bad)?

I saw the part where he talks about iFilm wanting fast pipes but someone else not wanting them, because they're using only e-mail, but that seems to be about the speed the customer wants. The ISP wouldn't be discriminating between video and e-mail packets.

Earlier he has an analogy about the electricity network and seems to explicitly classify hypothetical discrimination between Panasonic and Sony appliances and discrimination between TVs and radios as the same sort of thing (and both presumably bad).



The comments to this entry are closed.