« Forward in all directions! Where is Google going? | Main | Robert Scoble - A legend in his own time »

June 09, 2006

Comments

Webmetricsguru

I can see where Net Neutrality is going to heat up as an issue in the next couple of years. Wondering what's behind the problem (is it a bandwidth issue and/or a business - territorial issue?)

Great Post - I did not understand much about Net Neutrality but I saw it as the subject of several posts in my RSS feed reader.

Neal S. Lachman


Net Neutrality is to rigid of a concept for the future of the Internet.

I happen to have invested lots of money since 2000 in a company that plans to roll out multi-ten millions of Fiber-To-The-Home connections at 1 Gigabit per second each. This infrastructure will replace copper (Telco systems) and coax (CATV systems)infrastructures. Our job is to operate the fiber-optic systems to the maximum possible profitability. We also want to prevent abuse of this infrastructure and speed by large players.

We came up with a multi-level approach to this whole "speed through put guarantee" issue. We will be implementing this solution as we grow the subscriberbase into a critical mass (e.g. 33% or more of a particular market/area).

In short:

1. All personal streaming content (including VideoPods/ Video news/ Video broadcasts and Video unicasts, etc.) will be delivered without involvement of any need of a partnership with us.

2. Small and enterpreneurial businesses (for profit) can also go on without any need of partnership or extra payment. If the traffic is going to exceed a certain level (e.g. multiple thousands of paid downloads and streams) they slide into the medium business range. This means these people are starting to make lots of money on an infrastructure that we invested in (because customers can start downloading at 1 Gbps, meaning terabits per hour)

3. Medium size market (50,000+ downloads and streams) must pay a traffic charge, most likely on a fixed fee bases and small revenue sharing. (Think of online TV channels that can allow paid Full-motion Full-screen, DVD quality or High Definition quality streams or downlaods.)

4. Large size market (100,000+ downloads/streams) revenue sharing and fixed fee.

5. Mega size market (200,000+) must do revenuesharing and fixed fee.

The above system is not going to be used on dowloads that can be done today too. Would we block Vonage because we have our own VoIP service? No, I don't want my company to block anyone or any company. Would we charge Vonage extra for prefered traffic/prioritizing? Yes, absolutely.

FTTH systems like Verizon is building (maximum of 30 Mbps and maybe in the future 100 Mbps) seems fast, but compared to what our technology enables, we can offer much more (1 Gbps per customer). Verizon and AT&T are in their right to charge extra, why else would they want to invest multiple ten billion dollars in infrastructures? And if Verizon and AT&T are in their right with their systems to charge or prioritize, my company (with its 1 gbps connections) is even more so.

Also, do not forget that next generation infrastructures allow for the first time in history the migration from standard definition to truly High Definition TV. This infrastructure must be paid back, ask the net neutrality people how, and they won't be able to answer.

Net neutrality is just some paranoid issue.

Zaine Ridling

The problem I see is one of money. This is another example of the republican Congress selling off what is PUBLIC. To commoditize the internet is to go the way of energy — UP, UP, and WAY UP for prices. And what will consumers see? Not much different except the bill. Things are fine as they are now. Web 2.0 apps are being conceived as we speak mainly to extract money from our pockets, not to provide new and useful "services."

sanno tochigi

Net neutrality is an attempt to control pricing of assets that are not owned by the person intending to do the controlling. Google for example wants to control pricing of Verizon. (If this is such a great business perhaps Google could enter it?)

How about applications neutrality? How about pricing per bit regardless of whether it is an ad by google, microsoft office software or freeware by linux (support only business model)

Our problem today is that there simply are no principles...not even (or perhaps particularly) with billionaires like sergei and larry and bill. It is all about how much can you loot by bribing congress and hiring good lawyers....

how about legal neutrality? same hourly charges for a will as defending Ken lay...hmmmm this neutrality idea might be good!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter