North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]

  • From: Sean Donelan
  • Date: Sat Nov 12 13:34:34 2005

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> So really the question is not a technical one, or even a business
> model one.  It's a question of marketing.  Don't sell "Internet
> Access" if you can't access "the whole internet" for what 99 out
> of 100 people define as "the whole internet".  If you want to sell
> some more limited service, fine, give it a new name because it's
> not "Internet Access".

So its just marketing.  Some cable companies charge you $5 a month
more for HSIA if you don't buy the cable company's VOIP service and
$10 more if you don't buy the cable company's video service.  As long
as they use a brand name for the $15 discount package, they can have
whatever restrictions they chose on the discounted packages?  Could they
call it Internet++ or Platinum service and it would be fine?

Is there some licensing body that surveys 99 out of 100 people to
decide if something is "the whole internet?" That licensing body
would then have the power to order ISPs to carry just those web
sites? If 99 out of 100 people only access the top 20 or so web
sites, is that the "whole Internet" for them, because they think the
web is the Internet?  Would this be "must carry" for broadcast television
stations that must be carried for free by cable systems?  Would the
FCC maintain a list of web sites that that 99 out of 100 people use
that all licensed ISPs must carry on their networks?  Would that then
give the FCC the power to decide what web sites ISPs don't carry?