Personally I put a lot of stock in the evolution of ideas over time, in this case the old corporate model vs. new forms of free expression (the Internet). This would be an example of such a case, granted in the access to the Internet and the freedom inherant thereof. The corp's (old corporations) have a vested interest in the status quo, its makes them money and it keeps their stock holders happy (the money not the quo), which keeps them in business. So what do they try to do? Apply old ideas to new, conflict arrises and one wins out, usually the one with the most social impetus behind it. In this case, as in many others there are mitigating factors surrounding the conflict, namely the benefits offered by broadband and the scarcity of it.
In the article Mr. Chester argues rather forcefully that Ellacoya will try to put an end to the "free" broadband Internet so many of us enjoy, through tiered pricing, though an unremarkable idea, Ellacoya is based almost exclusively on control of broadband and access to the Internet, which its backers, including Goldman Sachs (large "old" money), wish to control for their own profit.
Mr. Chester goes on to site this quote:
"The way that the HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) architecture works, we never run out of bandwidth,"
and monopolizes on it, drawing the conclusion that cable companies are after controling the Internet and are "openly hostile to it". Of course he could be right.
But IMHO, Mr. Chester is engaging in quite a bit of fear mongering saying that this software is the end of the Internet as we know it, true if succesful a tiered pricing structure would severly hamper bandwidth intensive Internet applications, but only if the physical and technological basis for the Internet remains unchanged, which it shows no sign of doing (the Internet2 for example). Mr. Chester also goes onto imply that this service will immediatley be adopted by every major telecom in the US and quickly give them absolute control over every form of high speed Internet access. Of course this is entirely possible, as broadband is "scarce" (as in not ubiquitous) and dailup is maddeningly slow for the majority of us who've made the switch and are loathe to go back and those that use it now. Of course the success of this endeavour depends on what people are willing to pay for high speed Internet access, if it becomes more widely available (as in area coverage and competing mediums) then people won't buy tiered service, but will instead switch to the most reliable, cheapest, most flexible service. But if things remain essentailly unchanged, as Mr. Chester assumes or implies that he assumes, then it all depends on whether people are willing to switch to a high speed connection for more money, or stay with a low speed one for traditional rates, in other words a personal preference, and the conflict that would arrise from that choice; due to the unpredictable nature of personal preference I won't try to guess the outcome.
I believe that public demand for broadband will insight the telecoms to expand service as well as offer tiered service ala xDSL (1mb for $40 6mb for $150 or somewhere around there), a compromise in other words a good ammount of bandwidth for a good ammount of control.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I put a lot of stock in the evolution of ideas over time, in this case the old corporate model vs. new forms of free expression (the Internet). This would be an example of such a case, granted in the access to the Internet and the freedom inherant thereof. The corp's (old corporations) have a vested interest in the status quo, its makes them money and it keeps their stock holders happy (the money not the quo), which keeps them in business. So what do they try to do? Apply old ideas to new, conflict arrises and one wins out, usually the one with the most social impetus behind it. In this case, as in many others there are mitigating factors surrounding the conflict, namely the benefits offered by broadband and the scarcity of it.
In the article Mr. Chester argues rather forcefully that Ellacoya will try to put an end to the "free" broadband Internet so many of us enjoy, through tiered pricing, though an unremarkable idea, Ellacoya is based almost exclusively on control of broadband and access to the Internet, which its backers, including Goldman Sachs (large "old" money), wish to control for their own profit.
Mr. Chester goes on to site this quote:
"The way that the HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) architecture works, we never run out of bandwidth,"
and monopolizes on it, drawing the conclusion that cable companies are after controling the Internet and are "openly hostile to it". Of course he could be right.
But IMHO, Mr. Chester is engaging in quite a bit of fear mongering saying that this software is the end of the Internet as we know it, true if succesful a tiered pricing structure would severly hamper bandwidth intensive Internet applications, but only if the physical and technological basis for the Internet remains unchanged, which it shows no sign of doing (the Internet2 for example). Mr. Chester also goes onto imply that this service will immediatley be adopted by every major telecom in the US and quickly give them absolute control over every form of high speed Internet access. Of course this is entirely possible, as broadband is "scarce" (as in not ubiquitous) and dailup is maddeningly slow for the majority of us who've made the switch and are loathe to go back and those that use it now. Of course the success of this endeavour depends on what people are willing to pay for high speed Internet access, if it becomes more widely available (as in area coverage and competing mediums) then people won't buy tiered service, but will instead switch to the most reliable, cheapest, most flexible service. But if things remain essentailly unchanged, as Mr. Chester assumes or implies that he assumes, then it all depends on whether people are willing to switch to a high speed connection for more money, or stay with a low speed one for traditional rates, in other words a personal preference, and the conflict that would arrise from that choice; due to the unpredictable nature of personal preference I won't try to guess the outcome.
I believe that public demand for broadband will insight the telecoms to expand service as well as offer tiered service ala xDSL (1mb for $40 6mb for $150 or somewhere around there), a compromise in other words a good ammount of bandwidth for a good ammount of control.