From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V12 #113 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Thursday, May 4 2006 Volume 12 : Number 113 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Net Neutrality law? ["robert bristow-johnson" ] Re: Net Neutrality law? [andrew fries ] Re: Net Neutrality law? ["robert bristow-johnson" ] Re: Net Neutrality law? [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 01:10:36 -0500 From: "robert bristow-johnson" Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? > Apparently there have been bills showing up before Congress designed to do > away with net neutrality. The essential concept is that entities pay for > better web service. The upshot is that Amazon might work fine on your > computer, but the ectoguide slows to a crawl, since smoe wouldn't be paying > for the highest level of service. i'm not sure exactly what is different in the proposed legislation compared to the status quo. i am sure that the servers that host ecto or smoe do not have the net bandwidth that the servers that host amazon or google. and the reason is money. a commercial venture on the internet cannot afford to have customers wait too long for their clicks to respond. a vendor with a large customer base must have more bandwidth to the internet backbone than a vendor with a smaller customer base. that bigger bandwidth cost more but is paid for because of bigger sales volume. just freeform thinking rolling off my head. boy, i wish i could see that Noe Venable gig in NYC (just looking at the date). - -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 03:00:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friends... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ********************* Gray Abbott (no Email address) ********************** ******************* Tamar Boursalian (no Email address) ******************* *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Gray Abbott Tue May 03 1955 Suprised Tamar Boursalian Tue May 03 1966 Taurus Richard A. Holmes May 07 Taurus Steve Ito Fri May 08 1970 DA Bull... Brian Gregory Thu May 09 1963 Eclectic Catherine Sundnes Sat May 09 1970 Very Catzy Heidi Maier Wed May 10 1978 Taurus Kris the boy Fri May 11 1979 Taurus Patrick Varker Wed May 12 1954 Torius Philip David Morgan Sat May 12 1962 Chinese Tiger in Bull Clothing Steve Fagg Tue May 13 1958 Nightwol Karel Zuiderveld Fri May 13 1960 Stier Michael Colford Wed May 16 1962 Taurus Christopher Boek Tue May 19 1970 Taurus Julia Macklin Mon May 20 1968 ethereus Yngve Hauge Fri May 21 1971 Gemini Lisa Laane Tue May 22 1973 Gemini Jewel Kilcher Thu May 23 1974 The Gem Chandra Sriram Thu May 27 1971 Gemini Taina Sahlander Mon May 28 1973 Gemini Urs Stafford Thu May 31 1973 Give Way Perttu Yli-Krekola Thu June 02 1966 Kaksoset - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 19:34:34 +1000 From: andrew fries Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? robert bristow-johnson wrote: > i'm not sure exactly what is different in the proposed legislation > compared to the status quo. i am sure that the servers that host > ecto or smoe do not have the net bandwidth that the servers that host > amazon or google. and the reason is money. a commercial venture on > the internet cannot afford to have customers wait too long for their > clicks to respond. a vendor with a large customer base must have > more bandwidth to the internet backbone than a vendor with a smaller > customer base. that bigger bandwidth cost more but is paid for > because of bigger sales volume. NO. That bandwidth is already paid for by us, the customers, as well as the vendor who after all already pays for their traffic, per volume. There is absolutely no reason why they should be charged even further for priority awarded to 'their' packets. This whole thing is bullshit and its proposers deserve to die painfully... I hope I've made sensible and even-handed argument? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 11:19:49 -0500 From: "robert bristow-johnson" Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? andrew fries wrote: > > robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > i'm not sure exactly what is different in the proposed legislation > > compared to the status quo. i am sure that the servers that host > > ecto or smoe do not have the net bandwidth that the servers that host > > amazon or google. and the reason is money. a commercial venture on > > the internet cannot afford to have customers wait too long for their > > clicks to respond. a vendor with a large customer base must have > > more bandwidth to the internet backbone than a vendor with a smaller > > customer base. that bigger bandwidth cost more but is paid for > > because of bigger sales volume. > > NO. That bandwidth is already paid for by us, the customers, as well as the > vendor who after all already pays for their traffic, per volume. i thought i meant to say that > There is absolutely no reason why they should be charged even > further for priority awarded to 'their' packets. i think i understand. it's a marking on the packets to prioritize and you would have to pay more for higher priority which supposedly makes it scoot along the backbone faster. > This whole thing is bullshit and its proposers deserve to die painfully... > I hope I've made sensible and even-handed argument? on one hand, it sounds to me like just "another tax". we earn money (and pay income tax to multiple government entities), then we spend that money on housing (and pay property tax), drive (and pay carbon/highway tax), and spend on other stuff (and pay sales tax). if we drink alcohol, smoke, or buy some imported stuff, we pay more tax. it's sorta an "art" for the governments to figure out how much to tax each activity before getting a taxpayer rebellion. i once lived in NH and they had no personal income nor regular sales tax, but i had to pay a "head tax" with the town and had to pay library fees, etc. i certainly do not imply that all taxes are equally fair or moral nor that the money raised is spent in a fair or moral manner. but we have to pay for these things one way or another. and sometimes we tax discouraged behavior so that we can subsidize "encouraged" beahavior. someday this internet backbone is gonna get clogged again (as it has in the past) and they're gonna have to decide how to share the resource. i don't necessarily think that this priority fee is the right way to do it. i dunno *what* the right way to do it is. i don't like parcelling out limited resources to those who can best pay for it but go to NYC or SF and that's how they parcel out real estate. - -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 19:51:29 +0200 From: Sander Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? robert bristow-johnson wrote: > i'm not sure exactly what is different in the proposed legislation > compared to the status quo. Although explained somewhat simplistically and leaving out a whole slew of related issues, here's a decent article with some metaphors about what losing network neutrality means and why you should care: http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/ Sander ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:22:44 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? Hi, Sander wrote: > Although explained somewhat simplistically and leaving out a whole slew > of related issues, here's a decent article with some metaphors about > what losing network neutrality means and why you should care: > http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/ Wil Wheaton also posted a really good summary, with many relevant links to his blog: it's here . - -- =============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth =============================================== hear at the HOMe House Concert Series http://hom.smoe.org =============================================== ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V12 #113 ***************************