The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to 'network neutrality', the idea that all data on the net is treated equally. The comments put the agency at odds with companies such as Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to guarantee equal access to the net.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
This is crap. The Washington Post recently had an article stating Japan is almost totally wired with 100 meg fiber to the home. They can do it without a two tier structure why can't we?
That's exactly why the US and other countries doing such a thing will get left behind.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-06-29
This is crap. The Washington Post recently had an article stating Japan is almost totally wired with 100 meg fiber to the home. They can do it without a two tier structure why can't we?
Because the US is a completely different country and society than Japan or European countries.
Take a look at the whole GSM thing. You Americans invented the cell phone thing, but it took you years and years longer to properly implement it - 3rd world countries were already using full-coverage cellular networks, and you guys were still trying to figure out how to best divide/sell the frequencies.
On top of that, the US is an immense country. For us Dutch, implementing a nation-wide super-fast internet would be relatively easy compared to doing the same in the US.
And I'm not even mentioning the fact that the US governmental structure is quite odd - Washington's say in things is fairly limited compared to The Hague's say over here.
Member since:2005-11-05
Take a look at the whole GSM thing. You Americans invented the cell phone thing, but it took you years and years longer to properly implement it - 3rd world countries were already using full-coverage cellular networks, and you guys were still trying to figure out how to best divide/sell the frequencies.
It is easier to implement something from scratch than it is to upgrading a creaky old aging infrastructure. It is also much less expensive.
Just because we invented it doesn't mean we did a good job implementing it. Now that our infrastructure is starting to show its age and the big telcoms aren't doing so well, they don't want to upgrade.
You are right.
Member since:2007-02-22
Although it seems most ISPs are going to continue to play on the "fair and level," both because it's simpler and it's what people expect, I'm afraid a few corrupt ISPs (AOL, Verizon, &c) will take the failure of net neutrality to pass to encourage people to pay them to grant their sites priority.
The one impact I'm most worried about is our politics. Elections are coming up, and e-mail and electronic word-of-mouth is vital for any candidate nowadays. Imagine an election year where the GOP manages to spend enough money to lock Democrat sites down to a dismal minimum (on the bribable networks, anyways). Not to mention what fundie/extremist organizations will do to everyone else...
(can't resist)
That's a design feature, not a bug.
Member since:2005-07-18
And I'm not even mentioning the fact that the US governmental structure is quite odd - Washington's say in things is fairly limited compared to The Hague's say over here.
I'm pleased that it appears that way, because that's the way it should be. Ours is supposed to be a limited government, where the citizens--and hence the businesses which citizens run--maintain some autonomy.
Edited 2007-09-07 17:30
Member since:2005-07-06
And yet you don't have it, neither do we belgians. We're falling behind, after the industrial revolution Belgium had the densest railsystem after the UK and we reaped the benefits for the entire industrial age. Now we're behind because we've privatized the communications infrastructure and there's no immediate profit in investing in better connections.
People need to wake up and vote out the luddites (or the just plain ignorant) and improve the infrastructure. History shows why.
Member since:2005-07-24
Look at the size of Japan, though.
Considering the size of the U.S. we have a pretty sweet internet back-bone. In fact most of our internet back-bone is on optic cable, with speeds exceeding that of Japan's hopes for the future.
Problem is that smaller ISPs cannot afford optical connections, and opt for less expensive solutions, and larger ISPs often 'cannot afford' to run optical to all of their sub-stations or local hubs.
I live well outside of any large town, in Texas, and fiber optics have been laid to most subdivisions in the area, with each group of subdivisions having their own private subnet / local hub.
This is a technical requirement which causes good decentralization, good performance, and excellent capability. The true bottleneck then lies in the equipment utilized to power the network, and the standards applied to that equipment. Quality of Service features on most routers could be easily switched on to provide point-of-demand priority adjustment, merely by flipping a single option on the most popular networing equipment used to power the internet ( mostly Cisco, IIRC ).
--The loon
Member since:2007-07-10
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-11-15
This is crap. The Washington Post recently had an article stating Japan is almost totally wired with 100 meg fiber to the home. They can do it without a two tier structure why can't we?