What Net Neutrality should and should not cover

Sun Apr 27 19:02:51 UTC 2014

On April 27, 2014 at 10:04 nick at pelagiris.org (Nick B) wrote:
 > The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
 > dipping.

I'd characterize it as an attempt to charge content providers for
access to last mile customers, where those are two different
companies.

Which isn't really different from what you said, just phrased a little
differently.

But more importantly I think it's an attempt to impose a Cable TV (sat
tv, whatever) business model on the internet.

That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.

Since they grew up together it's all fairly symbiotic though we do see
flare-ups like when Time-Warner decided to block CBS over "access"
fees.

Not clear how that would work if imposed on the internet space.

Maybe get ready for basic, premium, and gold internet, gold includes
Netflix streaming AND Amazon shopping! Something like that.

What I'm more, or just as, concerned about is the end of just putting
up a web site and hoping people come to it w/o a lot of capital.

That is, launching a new web site becoming similar to launching a new
cable TV channel (i.e., coordinating with and paying/licensing with
the last-mile provider(s)) rather than whipping together some HTML and
hoping for the best, etc.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*