Who actually supports Access Tiering?
A little help please. Can anyone point out some people that actually support Access Tiering?
I understand that there are plenty of people who do not want the government messing with the internet so they are anti-NN legislation. That I get, but that is not the same as being in favor of tiering.
I understand that there are people who make the technical argument that QoS and packet prioritization may be important to help keep the flow of data efficient. That’s an important technical argument but it doesn’t necessarily mean that ISPs should be the ones who get to say how what gets prioritization.
My question is a little more basic. Who actually supports ISPs being able to determine who gets to have access to those VPN like higher levels of service? Other than people who work for ISPs I can’t see who would be in favor of this.
If you are one of these people please point me to your blog or website. I promise I’ll read what you have to say and listen to your point of view. I’m sure I’ll have questions for you, it’s just that I can’t wrap my mind around why you would want to turn that power over to the ISP.
Comments
As a consumer, I don't relish the idea of access tiering of my connection BUT I have a hard time understanding the basis for legislation against it.
Consider the situation with cable companies and their agreements with channels. Cable companies have long decided which channels to allow flowing over their lines. In fact, you could call this "access tiering in the extreme" since you can't even get a channel at all if the provider hasn't approved of it.
How is it that no one has legislated against the cables doing that? Same thing with satellites.
Frankly, I'm of the mind that Access Tiering may simply be a right of the provider. I can see that prioritization costs money and outlawing certain types of prioritization my indeed stop certain innovative uses.
By the way, I checked out Lippard's proposal (thanks for the link) and I see that he isn't deadset against access tiering either.
I think most people haven't a clue as to the ramifications of access tiering (as well as net neutrality) and we are really jumping the gun on trying to legislate in this area so quickly. I admit that the ISPs are not helping (lots of misleading propaganda) though.
By the way, I write a blog on telecomm/cable issues local to Montgomery County, MD.
http://libes.com/don/blog
Posted by: Don Libes | June 28, 2006 03:04 PM
Thanks for your comment Don and I’ll be sure to stop by and check out your blog. Reading through your comment I see three main points. 1. You are not a fan of NN legislation (I don’t think legislation is the best solution either), but that doesn’t mean that you support Access Tiering. 2. You say as a consumer, you don’t like the prospect of tiering. 3. You say that if prioritization is going to be necessary for the future of the internet then there will be a cost incurred by the ISPs to perform that prioritization and because of that the ISPs should be able to charge to provide access to those higher priority pipes.
Is that a fair summarization of your position?
I appreciate your comment about the costs associated with prioritization; I’ll be sure to give that some more thought. -- Tom
Posted by: Tom | June 28, 2006 04:16 PM
One more point you missed - We are legislating before we really understand the issues. Almost everything I've heard on radio shows, blogs, and ads has been very one-sided and superficial. I'd like to see what the industry practices before we tie its hands with legislation that may have other unforeseen impacts.
PS: I've added a link to your blog to my blog because I think there are strong parallels in the focus of both our blogs and readers of mine would benefit from reading yours.
Posted by: Don Libes | June 29, 2006 01:44 PM
I don't support access tiering because I'm not a consumer. Many of us at the ends of the last miles no longer just consume. We did that with cable TV, but we don't do that with the Net. We also produce.
Who "consumes" digital photography? After you buy your camera and your memory card, digital photography is all about production, not consumption.
Do we want to save Kodak and Fuji because they want to continue billing us for consumption of photo goods we no longer use or want -- because we no longer perform in the roles of consumers?
No. We want them to survive and thrive by improving offerings that are in alignment with a new world where everybody can produce as well as consume.
This is what the carriers need to do. Installing tiered service for one-way production-consumption regimes modeled on the old cable TV era is lame and ill-conceived. But it's all they can imagine, sadly.
Posted by: Doc S | July 1, 2006 07:53 PM