If anyone is wondering if network providers would dare to restrict services based on what the user wishes to use bandwidth for, just try signing up for Verizon's EVDO portable web service. (Marketed as "VZAccess, EVDO is a very promising wireless --read cell-phone technology based-- service now rolling out nationally.) As I remember it, the "fine print" on the face of the agreement you sign to get this service asks you to agree not to use it for VoIP. And seems to reserve the right to retaliate if you don't cooperate. (Since I'm out of town right now, and relying on EVDO, I'm pretty reluctant to test their policing. But my imagination suggests to me this big provider could make me deeply regret an experiment. So I'll be using my cell phone, not VoIP to make phone calls today.) What's lacking, of course, is any resource-consumption based restriction on usage (which a network provider might suggest). For example an extra charge or warning for exceeding some megabytes-per-hour threshold within a 24-hour period. Or for using large bursts of priority-geared capacity during peak hours. (I've noticed Verizon Wireless can have big-time problems delivering enough capacity at certain times per day. e.g., it can be hard to maintain voice quality around five PM some days, presumably because too many commuters in cars get on their phones and take up capacity.) Nope, Verizon Wireless simply says: "No. VoIP is not allowed over our airwaves". The day I see these big players at least suggest that hoggish capacity-use is not welcome at peak hours. Or should be paid for by the needing-user, I'll believe there is some possibility of network neutrality being respected by entrenched, capital-strong, big-players. But until I see a "specifications-based" approach to capacity-usage I'll be suspicious of the providers' motives. Indeed, arguing in capacity-usage terms might even encourage the VoIP development community to get better at rationing band-width consumption. And letting the user decide (in a more flexible way than is possible now) under what circumstances good voice- quality, or (alternatively) just-getting-through, would be preferred. Yes, this is political. And may be at the heart of how communication services survive or thrive in the future. Tom Goldsmith -----Original Message----- From: hidden-discuss-bounces at lists.hidden-tech.net [mailto:hidden-discuss-bounces at lists.hidden-tech.net]On Behalf Of Reva Reck Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:23 AM To: Hidden Tech Subject: [Hidden-tech] Network neutrality ** Be a Good Dobee and help the group, you must be counted to post . ** Fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area. Hi all, I'm not sure to what extent political discussions are allowed on this list, but there's a political debate going on now that affects all of us in the high tech community, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. The following is an excerpt from a message I received from MoveOn.org: "Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to open more properly on your computer." There's a lot more to the message, but I'd just like to suggest that people check out this issue on MOveOn's website and any others you rely on for this kind of information. This sounds like something that could really hurt small high-tech businesses, not to mention threatening our freedom of information. -Reva -- ________________________________ Reva Reck (978) 544-3911 reva at revareck.com _______________________________________________ Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list. If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members page on the Hidden Tech Web site. http://www.hidden-tech.net/members