What I'm saying is that the services should be based on - speed, time, bandwidth etc. and other objective criteria.
_not_ the type, of or subjective quality of the data.
Neutral as far as the what the data is - video, voice, text - medical records or an "epic fail" video.
They should view it all as 1's and 0's.
If Google and Verizon wish to create tier systems for their customers they are free to do it --> based on the 1's and 0's.
The only time content should be in question is if the content is illegal under certain jurisdictions i.e. child pornography.
Yes, this does mean that the rich will have the fastest broadest internet connections. But, that is already true.
And it would still be true eve net neutrality was broken. The rich and powerful can always get around the laws. The Fairest way is to let the access be neutral and available as possible.
If price is the issue then people (towns, groups, associations etc.) can pool their resources to pay for it.
Like we do for books.
No publisher or government sets up a book availability tiered system based on content.
Publishers provide books to whoever pays for them.
The rich buy the books. The poor borrow them at the library (that paid for them).
-TJP
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Quimby
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:50 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Google/Verizon policy framework
Gee, so you are saying that while no one should interfere with net neutrality,
if the users want their kitty videos (et. al.) to download faster then Google and
Verizon should provide a tiered service just for that purpose?
- Bill
Todd Puccio wrote:
> That's why the Government should enforce content neutrality upon the providers and
> upon itself. Thus, leaving the decision upon what content is important in the
> hands of the "users".
>
Received on Thu Aug 12 2010 - 17:43:37 EDT