AT&T accepts Net Neutrality?
Wow. If true, that's a huge win.
Hmmmm .... Not as exciting as I thought.
A greater commitment to network neutrality, or nondiscrimination involving Internet traffic. AT&T said it would "maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service" for two years.
Legislation is still needed.
Also, what is "neutral" is some of the internets, not all of the internets. The portion of the BW dedicated to DSL is neutral, but not the portion dedicated to U-verse. (This is a vast change from the model faced by Bell Atlantic in the early 90's, which forced them to accomodate other "digital tv service providers" over their network.) In general I'm okay with a partition between public and private services. But the devil is in the details.
If the "neutral" part of the bandwidth is the 768 kbps they promise to offer for $20/month, well that series of tubes just ain't fat enough for my tastes. I'd be placated with 6 Mbps of neutral throughput at a reasonable price.
There's a need for deeper analysis.
|
- jim 12-29-2006 6:52 pm
Wow. If true, that's a huge win.
- mark 12-29-2006 10:49 pm
Hmmmm .... Not as exciting as I thought.
Legislation is still needed.
- mark 12-29-2006 10:55 pm
Also, what is "neutral" is some of the internets, not all of the internets. The portion of the BW dedicated to DSL is neutral, but not the portion dedicated to U-verse. (This is a vast change from the model faced by Bell Atlantic in the early 90's, which forced them to accomodate other "digital tv service providers" over their network.) In general I'm okay with a partition between public and private services. But the devil is in the details.
If the "neutral" part of the bandwidth is the 768 kbps they promise to offer for $20/month, well that series of tubes just ain't fat enough for my tastes. I'd be placated with 6 Mbps of neutral throughput at a reasonable price.
There's a need for deeper analysis.
- mark 12-30-2006 6:09 am