Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
June 11, 2006, 10:01 am
rate this thread
I'm trying to understand this concept, and the bill that's being put
through congress. I could be wrong, but this is my opinion of what
i've heard so far. I looked at these articles:
so, if i own an ISP or a Telecom, I can charge a company more money for
them to get a higher quality of service to deliver their "premium"
traffic such as video to my customers?
sounds a little like "protection money" to me...
just when like some shady characters offer to provide a "service" to
your business by you paying them money to "protect" your business from
harm. Who's to say that they aren't truthfully providing a service
and guarding your business? They could be, you really have no way of
knowing... But, more than likely, they would be the ones doing the
they say they want the money for upgrades, but to me if anything, this
is a disincentive to upgrade. Because if i were them I would always
want to keep some of the old equipment handy, just so i can say "well,
if you don't pay us, instead of your traffic going across this brand
new Cisco router, it will go through this router i made in my
As long as they haven't "upgraded" yet they can always justify
collecting "protection money" from "big content companies."
I would understand better if the hosting companies had to pay more to
their ISP to get a higher quality of service. I (a webmaster) pay my
hosting company more, then they in turn pay their ISP. does the bill
cover this type of scenario, or just the first one?