Net Neutrality, Good for Innovation?

[Cpilot]

Half Bytes

The inherent problem is that if no one can profit from innovation then who can we count on to improve the internet?
Can we actually count on the government to provide the necessary improvements to the web to take it through this century?
Personally I can't think of anything the government has become involved in that turns out for the best, normally what you end up with is bloated and outdated bureaucracies that fail on too many levels to provide the essential services needed.

[Ralf Maximus]

Kahn rejected the term "Net Neutrality", calling it "a slogan". He cautioned against dogmatic views of network architecture, saying the need for experimentation at the edges shouldn't come at the expense of improvements elsewhere in the network.

Net Neutrality's a "slogan"?

The concept of Net Neutrality is simply this: that no one company or organization receives favorable access above another, that the owners of backbone infrastructure may not select some packets for preferential treatment.  All the data in the pipe should be treated equally, with a blind eye.

That's it.  That's all.  What does that have to do with stifling innovation or removing profit incentive?

I'm kind of surprised -- I expected different from Robert Kahn; am I misreading his stance?

[Cpilot]

I'm kind of surprised -- I expected different from Robert Kahn; am I misreading his stance?

The link to the entire article is there, and from what I read that is his stance.
I pointed out the article and used it as an opportunity to rant a little about the coercive tactics of some of the providers.
If the goal is access for all then requiring people to purchase services they either don't want or need can block some from getting it.

[Ralf Maximus]

The link to the entire article is there, and from what I read that is his stance.
I pointed out the article and used it as an opportunity to rant a little about the coercive tactics of some of the providers.

I recognize that, and I did read the whole article.  I'm just amazed that Kahn's view seems to mirror that of the big providers.  Suspiciously so.  Wonder if they got to him?

[Cpilot]

The link to the entire article is there, and from what I read that is his stance.
I pointed out the article and used it as an opportunity to rant a little about the coercive tactics of some of the providers.

I recognize that, and I did read the whole article.  I'm just amazed that Kahn's view seems to mirror that of the big providers.  Suspiciously so.  Wonder if they got to him?

-Ralf Maximus (November 25, 2007, 09:42 PM)

I don't know, but I do think that access and innovation can be handled differently and open high speed internet to more people.
The bundling of crap you don't want to get access IMO restricts reasonable charges for the service.
For example AT&T advertise $15.95 for DSL but you have to buy telephone service and select a long distance provider to get it. By the time they're done your looking at a bill (taxes, etc.) in excess of $85.00 a month.
I'd rather pay $25.00 or $30.00 a month for the DSL and they can keep their phone service, who needs the extra expense when you have a cell phone?
Cable is just as bad if not worse in some locations.