The fact is, with high-speed equipment and applications written a bit smarter than they were years before, best-effort delivery actually works pretty well. My son can turn on the wireless feature of his Nintendo DSi and within minutes he’s playing kids from all over the world.

Latency is usually about the weakest link in the path, which is usually the web/app/service host you’re trying to access. The truth is, there’s *plenty* of fibre out there that can be lit up any time they need more capacity. In the 90’s they laid down more cable than anyone uses. For most, the issue is the last mile, the internet drop to your house – and they know it. It’s also about aging phone company infrastructure, which is why more people don’t have DSL.

This stuff all about increasing control and $$. Don’t let shills like Spence convince you it’s any other way. Read Spence’s posts and you get a pretty good idea what he’s all about.

As for the Internet, what they’re trying to do is give a greater advantage to companies and people with money (what a surprise!). So if you are a small business and can’t afford a faster connection, you will be unable to compete with the bigger corporations. Or you will be forced to come up with the money in order to stay in business. So it looks to me like just another scam for those with money and power to stay that way.

Two Tier Internet is simply a physical manifestation of what had already happened.

Can’t you answer that for yourself, buddy?

@Spencer. YOU KNOW YOUR STUFF!! – I think everyone here should read up a little more and understand how the internet works. Spencer knows how this stuff works and he’s just explaining what some companies will be paying for.

What you all need to understand is that there are right now on the current internet companies who pay for leased lines with specific connections to whatever location they need. This is necessary for businesses to operate. What spencer was discussing was the need for very very reliable business internet with a predefined route. I am all fine for that because they can afford to pay for that. The way a watchdog helps is by looking to make sure these type of agreements don’t mean that an average citizen is hurt by getting traffic refused (highly unlikely).

Now, about the 2 tier internet or having two internets (if that would be the term). The author and many people need to look at how an internet frame works and exactly what is being proposed with having another tier in the internet. ISPs control the size of the packets we can get across the internet. What changes is whats inside of that packet or frame. So there is technically no speed change. What can change a lot of speed is the route the frame takes to reach is destination.

Which leads to who sends what. Having a 2 tier scheme as proposed would lead to the internet having 2 zones. An anonymous zone and a zone where everyone is identifiable. This makes it much harder for people to do the nasty stuff on the internet since some authority figure can know who you are. What will stay the same is that the data you transmit will still be encrypted so you will have your privacy but no anonymity. That’s the short description.

Overall, Spencer, good points. Everyone else needs to stop going with the heresay and start to read up on how this technology stuff works before you just agree to what others are talking about. I don’t know it all, but I will take the time to verify what someone posts… specially on topics like this. I suggest you all do the same.

Take care everyone

It talks about how some of the major conglomerates media companies own not only the web sites but the means of delivery and they’re not interested in dissent. THAT is the reason for a two tiered internet; your money!!! We the people, even in a fake democracy, should get our way once in a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Orwell-Rolls-Grave-Charles-Lewis/dp/B0008237AA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1283026939&sr=8-1

The reason huge content providing companies like google support ‘net neutrality’ is because they don’t want diversified content competition from gaming,voip and other startups.

The reason some cell companies are pro net neutrality, is almost certainly because they believe they have more to fear from wimax and other startups than they do from government regulation. Wimax related and other network startups have the best chance of diversifying network choices, and for that reason even the cable companies will eventually support net neutrality, to stop upstart competitors.

Google and the cell companies want you to have only one choice with one high bill in how you connect to the internet.

When big companies and government agencies say they want to reduce your choices to help you, be skeptical.

Cable subscriptions have not dropped but I would love to see how many people now have just basic cable. The only reason in my opinion Cable and Cell Phone Companies have not seen a drop in subscribers because there are three payments people will make out side the basics (Food, and heat) cable and cell phones and cars.

We’ll see once more join the ranks of the 99ers, and cable and cell phone bills start becoming delinquent. They many try this but it will not last.