Comments on: Net neutrality: the electricity analogy http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:37:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jake http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-4479 Jake Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:26:39 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-4479 not sure that I totally agree with your analogy, there are many services that we pay for that are not based on usage, for example cable TV, some Internet providers. not sure that I totally agree with your analogy, there are many services that we pay for that are not based on usage, for example cable TV, some Internet providers.

]]> By: Harlan http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-4475 Harlan Sat, 04 Jun 2011 05:09:55 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-4475 Depending on our backgrounds, many of us will find analogies that are applicable to the issue of net neutrality. The theme of them all (in my opinion) revolves around the issue of monied interests versus non-monied interests. So often the fox ends up guarding the hen house. There are many foxes drooling over the internet. Foxes are clever. The fox only reveals his identity when the deed is finally accomplished -- when he has control of the hen house. So really, I don't know if a debate over net neutrality is as important as a discussion of how to keep net players transparent. Depending on our backgrounds, many of us will find analogies that are applicable to the issue of net neutrality. The theme of them all (in my opinion) revolves around the issue of monied interests versus non-monied interests. So often the fox ends up guarding the hen house. There are many foxes drooling over the internet. Foxes are clever. The fox only reveals his identity when the deed is finally accomplished — when he has control of the hen house. So really, I don’t know if a debate over net neutrality is as important as a discussion of how to keep net players transparent.

]]> By: Emanuele http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-4473 Emanuele Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:33:42 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-4473 I've always tried to explain my audience how important net neutrality is. It's not an easy concept for most people, and i found somewhat difficult to show the consequences of a non-neutral net environment. The supermarkets analogy is great, i'll use it on my seminars. Thanks. I’ve always tried to explain my audience how important net neutrality is. It’s not an easy concept for most people, and i found somewhat difficult to show the consequences of a non-neutral net environment. The supermarkets analogy is great, i’ll use it on my seminars. Thanks.

]]> By: realizePhiladelphia http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-101 realizePhiladelphia Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:05:15 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-101 learn more about net neutrality and check out the rest of our blogs by visiting http://web.illish.us! learn more about net neutrality and check out the rest of our blogs by visiting http://web.illish.us!

]]> By: Trying to Be like Bill Gates » Some youth rethink online communications (AP) http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Trying to Be like Bill Gates » Some youth rethink online communications (AP) Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:27:54 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-81 [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all.Did you know that Relative means one related by kinship, common origin, or marriage. I heard a rumour microsoft To Open Computer Training Centers For Ex-Combatants In All Headline News - The announcement comes nearly a month after Colombian President Alvaro Uribe met Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and requested him to help in country’s peace process. The donation - $234,000 in cash and $77,000 in software - was announced Thursday …Did you know that Training means a series of connected railroad cars pulled or pushed by one or more locomotives. wow… this is such a great idea [...] [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all.Did you know that Relative means one related by kinship, common origin, or marriage. I heard a rumour microsoft To Open Computer Training Centers For Ex-Combatants In All Headline News – The announcement comes nearly a month after Colombian President Alvaro Uribe met Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and requested him to help in country’s peace process. The donation – $234,000 in cash and $77,000 in software – was announced Thursday …Did you know that Training means a series of connected railroad cars pulled or pushed by one or more locomotives. wow… this is such a great idea [...]

]]> By: Bill Gates » Network Neutrality Debate: It’s All Relative http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Bill Gates » Network Neutrality Debate: It’s All Relative Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:27:32 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-80 [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all. This will be worth your time red Hat under threat from Oracle (AP) [...] [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all. This will be worth your time red Hat under threat from Oracle (AP) [...]

]]> By: Tech and Science News Updates! » Blog Archive » Network Neutrality Debate: It’s All Relative http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Tech and Science News Updates! » Blog Archive » Network Neutrality Debate: It’s All Relative Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:36:11 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-79 [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all. [...] [...] The same is true of Cleland’s argument about how much more broadband we have in the US than we had a few years ago. He trots out the discredited FCC numbers, while Lessig again points out that his scale is wrong. He’s doing a then and now comparison within the US, rather than comparing US broadband change to other nations around the world, where we’ve fallen increasingly behind. As I’ve said in the past, it may not be the worst thing to fall behind somewhat, if others are making big bets that will later turn out to be mistakes — but it is still interesting to see a second situation where the debate hinges on both sides using a different scale. Finally, pulls out the completely bogus argument that we thought had died that breaking net neutrality is nothing new because it’s exactly what companies like Akamai have always done. The trick here is more subtle, but no less wrong. Akamai doesn’t break net neutrality because it provides a premium access path for everyone — not just customers of a specific ISP. It continues the end-to-end approach of the internet by allowing a company to create better speeds for anyone who wants their content. The telcos aren’t trying to do that. They’re trying to create special pipes that will force content and service providers just to reach their customers. It’s very much a case of what Lessig later points to in the form of a post from Brian Wills saying that the net neutrality debate is similar to if electricity companies tried to charge a premium for what you used the electricity for — rather than just the amount of electricity. Now, you can argue that’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s not the way the debate has mostly been portrayed up until now. Supporters of the telcos have argued that net neutrality would ban them from charging more for general bandwidth, which isn’t the case at all. [...]

]]> By: What's New Media? http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-78 What's New Media? Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:24:40 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-78 <strong>The search for net neutrality metaphors. Candidate: the US transpo indsutry....</strong> Lee compares the current Network neutrality debate to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 to regulate railroads, the high-tech industry of the day. The ICC quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming t... The search for net neutrality metaphors. Candidate: the US transpo indsutry….

Lee compares the current Network neutrality debate to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 to regulate railroads, the high-tech industry of the day. The ICC quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming t…

]]> By: What's New Media? http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-699 What's New Media? Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:24:40 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-699 <strong>The search for net neutrality metaphors. Candidate: the US transpo indsutry....</strong> Lee compares the current Network neutrality debate to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 to regulate railroads, the high-tech industry of the day. The ICC quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming t... The search for net neutrality metaphors. Candidate: the US transpo indsutry….

Lee compares the current Network neutrality debate to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 to regulate railroads, the high-tech industry of the day. The ICC quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming t…

]]> By: Earl Mardle http://brianwill.net/blog/2006/10/21/net-neutrality-the-electricity-analogy/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Earl Mardle Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:54:40 +0000 http://brianwill.net/blog/?p=13#comment-77 A slight extension of that. The electricity company (telcos) want to charge me for how I use their electricity (bandwidth) alright, and they will charge me different rates depending on whether I use it to boil an egg, watch a TV or run a heart/lung machine (boy now THERE'S a premium business) But on top of that, they don't produce the electricity AND they want to charge the people who DO for carrying that electricity, AND they want to charge the producers based on the "kind" of electricity they produce. So if most of my electricity is used for boiling eggs I get a cheaper rate than if it is used for running heart lung machines. This would be because I have a contract with the heart/lung patient for security of supply but I have to subcontract delivery to the line company who, naturally, will charge me more for QOS. In other words, these guys want to be the ultimate gatekeepers, or highway robbers. Which, incidentally, is whta they should be doing. Profits are, by my definition, unearned income, cashflow without overhead; they owe it to their shareholders to create as much of that as possible. Which is why we need regulators with half a clue. Its also why we ban slavery and demand that trucks on the road have minimum engineering and maintenance standards. A slight extension of that.

The electricity company (telcos) want to charge me for how I use their electricity (bandwidth) alright, and they will charge me different rates depending on whether I use it to boil an egg, watch a TV or run a heart/lung machine (boy now THERE’S a premium business)

But on top of that, they don’t produce the electricity AND they want to charge the people who DO for carrying that electricity, AND they want to charge the producers based on the “kind” of electricity they produce.

So if most of my electricity is used for boiling eggs I get a cheaper rate than if it is used for running heart lung machines.

This would be because I have a contract with the heart/lung patient for security of supply but I have to subcontract delivery to the line company who, naturally, will charge me more for QOS.

In other words, these guys want to be the ultimate gatekeepers, or highway robbers.

Which, incidentally, is whta they should be doing. Profits are, by my definition, unearned income, cashflow without overhead; they owe it to their shareholders to create as much of that as possible.

Which is why we need regulators with half a clue. Its also why we ban slavery and demand that trucks on the road have minimum engineering and maintenance standards.

]]>