[MVLUG] Fwd: throttling ethernet laws

Joe Pfeiffer joseph at pfeifferfamily.net
Wed Sep 23 22:20:07 MDT 2009

Samat K Jain writes:
>On Tuesday 22 September 2009 10:33:28 pm, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > However, telecommunications firms on both sides of the Atlantic
>> > argue that carrying high-bandwidth content, such as video, puts an
>> > extra burden on their networks and costs them money.
>> > They argue the cost should, in part, be borne by the websites or the
>> > consumers.
>> Of course the cost should be borne by websites and consumers.  I
>> should be paying for the bandwidth I use.  A high-bandwidth website
>> should need to pay more for their access, and a high-bandwidth
>> consumer should, as well.  Perfect neutrality would mean everyone
>> connected to the internet would pay the same cost per byte, whether it
>> was google.com, lcctnm.org, or pfeifferfamily.net.  If anything, there
>> is an argument that the cost per byte for the high-bandwidth sites
>> would be lower, since you end up paying more for infrastructure and
>> less for incremental costs.  But given that I've paid for my access,
>> my byte should be treated the same as google's.
>I'm not sure if you're trying to advocate a new business model for
>telecommunications companies... but I don't agree, because the way
>things are, high bandwidth sites and consumers already DO pay for
>their access.


No, I'm trying to advocate the current model, at least as I understand
it (which corresponds to your explanation, which I snipped).

The article quotes ISPs and telecommunications companies as opposing
net neutrality on the grounds that high users of bandwidth should be
paying for that that bandwidth.  This strikes me as a complete non
sequitur, since I don't see any way in which paying for bandwidth can
be equated with paying for high priority for your packets.  That's the
point I was trying (badly, I see) to make.

More information about the MVLUG mailing list