Infreemation infreemation

Canadian Network Neutrality加拿大网络中立

Canadian internet “watchdog” Michael Geist points out that there are forces at work threatening so-called “network neutrality” or as I prefer to frame the issue:加拿大互联网“看门狗”迈克尔geist指出，有力量，在工作中的威胁，所以所谓的“网络中立” ，或正如我宁愿框架的问题： internet freedom网际网路自由 . 。 Of particular concern is Videotron’s president Robert Depatie who proves he just doesn’t get it.特别令人关注的是videotron的总统罗伯特depatie谁证明，他只是不获取它。 Unfortunately what’s scary is neither do many of the folks listening to him:不幸的是什么可怕的是，也没有很多的乡亲听他：

Depatie floats the idea of an “Internet transmission tariff”, as he calls on the government to levy a tariff on content providers such as the music and film industry for using high-speed networks. depatie花车的想法“因特网传输关税” ，因为他呼吁政府征收关税的内容提供商，如音乐和电影业为利用高速网络。 Says Depatie: “If the movie studio were to mail a DVD. depatie说： “如果电影制片厂以邮件的DVD 。 . 。 . 。 they would expect to pay postage or courier fees.他们会期望支付邮费或速递费。 Why should they not expect a transmission tariff?” This suggestion represents possibly the most extreme example of how providers might try to charge content creators and e-commerce companies - by obtaining the support of government-backed tariff.为什么他们不能指望传输关税“ ？这个建议，代表可能是最极端的例子，如何供应商可能会试图负责内容创作者和电子商贸的公司-由获得的支持，政府支持的关税。

He obviously has no idea how or why the internet functions the way it does - has he heard of peering, and that costs are borne by both parties in any transaction?很明显，他不知道如何或为什么在互联网上的职能方式，它-他听到的对等，并承担费用是由双方在任何交易？ He is clearly confused about the role of telecommunications and demonstrates a gross disregard for the privilege enjoyed by his corporation to carry my bits in the first place.他显然是混淆的作用，电信和显示毛额无视特权，他所享有的公司进行我的位摆在首位。

Bob Frankston鲍勃兰克斯顿 has been doing great work analyzing the different issues surrounding telecommunications policy, and why it is economical to solve information transport and content delivery at separate layers, and why the historical methods of providing telecom service are outdated:已做的大量工作，分析不同的问题，周围的电讯政策，以及为什么，这是经济，以解决信息，运输和内容交付在单独的层，为什么历史的方法，提供电信服务是过时的：

The key is to align the incentives so we are funding transport directly and thus there is no conflict between our need for more transport capacity and our need to create services outside the transport provider’s domain.关键是要统一的诱因，所以我们的资金直接运输，因此是没有冲突之间，我们需要更多的运输能力和我们的需要创造以外的服务，运输服务提供商的域名。 We are used to funding shared transport as infrastructure – roads, electric distribution, sewers etc.我们现正使用的资金，作为共同运输的基础设施-道路，配电，下水道等。

There is ample precedent.有足够的先例。 Edison original sold light but we now buy electricity and create our own lighting.爱迪生原出售的轻，但我们现在购买的电力，创造我们自己的照明。 We share a single electric distribution system because additional systems create costs without adding value.我们共享一个单一的配电系统，因为系统的额外成本，创造附加价值。 We can see this in the carriers’ own funding models – their costs are based on houses passed but their revenue is based on families that subscribe.我们可以看到，这方面的运营商本身的资金车型-他们的费用是根据房屋通过，但他们的收入是基于家庭订阅。 If you have two distribution systems you have 2x the cost and no increase in value.如果您有两个分配制度，你有2倍的成本和并没有增加价值。

See also Frankston’s interesting analogy with sidewalks in an essay: “也见兰克斯顿有趣的比喻，与人行道在一篇文章： “ Sidewalks: Paying by the Stroll人行道：支付漫步 ” “