« Insight's Digital Television Town Hall | Main | Emergency IE patch released today; National championship in 3D; Yahoo increasing search privacy »

Tuesday, December 16, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ashley, Without regulations agansit discrimination and for equality, we all fall prey to those who are in position to do just that. From what I read on you coalition site you feel as though big telecom companies aren't making enough revenue to create a faster internet with new resources. That is untrue, further alot of the creativity for the Net comes from small innovative sites and people who are not involved with these large corporations.The way I see it the big corporations want the net more commercialized, and stripped of its controversial and independent content.The telecom companies want to turn the net into a money making machine with restricted access to websites they feel you don't need to view.In the future higher costs for using the internet is their plan, not just for accessing internet content, but also for providing internet content.I don't want to buy access to the internet like we by channels on the TV.Your coalition also stated that: If there was discrimination or restricted access Congress would react swiftly to create new laws, and those new laws would be restrictive. Aren't these the very regulations YOU are agansit? Why give the opportunity? So we can go back and spend more money on issues that can be decided now? Do you really want Big business regulating your internet? It won't be in your best interest!I am always up for good conversation Thanks for stopping by.Wolfbernz


I think a lot of the confusion with the caching vs. net neutrality issue is that the definition of "net neutrality" really depends on who you ask. Some say that it has to do with preventing an ISP from prioritizing speeds between one web site and or another. Others say that it has to do with limit ISPs from slowing down or blocking P2P traffic.

The problem with these definitions, as one comment on the Google blog pointed out, is that "it is an outcome being described, not a policy." Thus, nobody really knows HOW to achieve that goal, because there's no technical definition tied to the outcome. If they do, they describe it as their definition of net neutrality, which gets lost among all of the other definitions.

In other words, nail down a definition and please call it something else. Instead of fights breaking out between Google, EFF, etc. vs. the ISPs and network admins, both of the groups should try to hash out a sane policy that would allow ISPs to being able to properly manage a network while making malicious prioritization (shutting down a competitor's website, for example) against regulations.


I don't see the technical distinction between google's product and the Akamai edge cache appliances/content delivery network that most isp's use. Windows update, monster.com and Viacom's internet properties have used Akamai for years to help cut ISP's bandwidth needs to the internet proper. Google's appliance seems to be built along the same lines.

Chris Buechler

Out of cycle IE patch is coming to Windows Update on Wednesday reportedly to fix the vulnerability noted in this post.

IE users - make sure you visit Windows Update (update.microsoft.com) on Wednesday.

On a similar note, Firefox was also updated today to address a few security vulnerabilities.

Though IE has a significantly worse track record than the other browsers, none are immune to these types of things. It's important to keep your applications up to date. Chrome, Safari and Opera have all suffered similar issues as well.

The comments to this entry are closed.