The next step - transitioning the world to Internet-wide upgrades - may be the biggest hurdle. "Some people think this sounds crazy, but we have plenty of examples of large infrastructures for which there is an alternative that does some things better, " say Ellen Zegura. "Think of FedEx compared with the old U.S. Postal system."Yes, let's think about the comparison. The postal service treats every package the same, charging the same rate to every customer. Until FedEx came along, distance the package traveled didn't matter. No location was too remote for delivery. The fact that service was subsidized by the taxpayer kept it cheap, reliable, and equitable, if not exactly speedy.
Then FedEx came along. Different rates are charged based on size, distance, and difficulty of delivery. If a customer is willing to pay extra, her packages can move ahead of everyone else's. Speed is achieved, at the cost of pricing a good many people out of the market.
FedEx is something corporations and the relatively better-off can enjoy, while the poorer individual consumer is left to use the slower post office. We hear increasing calls for the elimination of the postal service from a certain wing of the political spectrum as well.
It seems to me that the "FedEx" model of internet infrastructure sounds a like like the elimination of net neutrality. Let's hope this is not where GENI is headed.
5 comments:
damn, dave. all of the sudden you've got so much to say about so many things. reviving the GBOR was a very good thing.
I'm pretty happy with the current postal system, and I've never quite understood why my father (who loves to websurf, but doesn't download movies, music, or porn) should pay for all the bandwidth used by those damn kids (as he puts it).
Also, if I did have a complaint about the postal service, it would be that the first class rate goes up to often, and this seems to be necessary because the lower rate, bulk mail is choking up the system. That's neither here nor there on the merits, but it does confuse the metaphor a little bit.
Anyway, if there *is* a public interest in net neutrality, it seems to me that the public ought to pony up and pay for more infrastructure.
I agree the public should pay. I'm all in favor of a nation-wide, free broadband wireless system. Let's do it.
Net neutrality doesn't meant that you shouldn't pay for what you use. It just means that once you make a fair deal with your Internet provider, they should hold up their end. You wanna pay for a small amount of bandwidth each month, cool; wanna pay for unlimited use, also cool.
One of the main problems right now is all the Internet providers are selling 'unlimited' bandwidth to everyone. Now that people actually want to use that bandwidth it turns out the ISPs actually haven't built the infrastructure to support it.
This is very convenient for them: 1) they can continue to use misleading marketing, 2) they are fucking with people's use of that bandwidth they already paid a fair price for (e.g., breaking Internet protocols to block bittorrent traffic) and 3) it gives them cover to prioritize their content over other companies. Oh, you want to get to google's advertisement-supported search page as quickly as you can get to our advertisement-supported search page? That will cost you double.
Its the last implication that could really disrupt the Internet. ISPs should be seen as utilities, fair service to all customers, not as a bunch of fuckfaces, which is how they are currently viewed...
It's that last the step, the one that goes from honesty in labeling to disruption of the internet, where you lose me.
ISPs will be more like utilities when the public takes responsibility for subsidizing (perhaps by granting limited monopolies) the funding of infrastructure.
Post a Comment