Infreemation infreemation

Canadian Network Neutrality加拿大網絡中立

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:加拿大互聯網“看門狗”邁克爾geist指出，有力量，在工作中的威脅，所以所謂的“網絡中立” ，或正如我寧願框架的問題： internet freedom網際網路自由 . 。 Of particular concern is Videotron’s president Robert Depatie who proves he just doesn’t get it.特別令人關注的是videotron的總統羅伯特depatie誰證明，他只是不獲取它。 Unfortunately what’s scary is neither do many of the folks listening to him:不幸的是什麼可怕的是，也沒有很多的鄉親聽他：

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花車的想法“因特網傳輸關稅” ，因為他呼籲政府徵收關稅的內容提供商，如音樂和電影業為利用高速網絡。 Says Depatie: “If the movie studio were to mail a DVD. depatie說： “如果電影製片廠以郵件的DVD 。 . 。 . 。 they would expect to pay postage or courier fees.他們會期望支付郵費或速遞費。 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.為什麼他們不能指望傳輸關稅“ ？這個建議，代表可能是最極端的例子，如何供應商可能會試圖負責內容創作者和電子商貿的公司-由獲得的支持，政府支持的關稅。

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?很明顯，他不知道如何或為什麼在互聯網上的職能方式，它-他聽到的對等，並承擔費用是由雙方在任何交易？ 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.他顯然是混淆的作用，電信和顯示毛額無視特權，他所享有的公司進行我的位擺在首位。

Bob Frankston鮑勃蘭克斯頓 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transport and content delivery at separate layers, and why the historical methods of providing telecom service are outdated:已做的大量工作，分析不同的問題，周圍的電訊政策，以及為什麼，這是經濟，以解決信息，運輸和內容交付在單獨的層，為什麼歷史的方法，提供電信服務是過時的：

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.關鍵是要統一的誘因，所以我們的資金直接運輸，因此是沒有衝突之間，我們需要更多的運輸能力和我們的需要創造以外的服務，運輸服務提供商的域名。 We are used to funding shared transport as infrastructure – roads, electric distribution, sewers etc.我們現正使用的資金，作為共同運輸的基礎設施-道路，配電，下水道等。

There is ample precedent.有足夠的先例。 Edison original sold light but we now buy electricity and create our own lighting.愛迪生原出售的輕，但我們現在購買的電力，創造我們自己的照明。 We share a single electric distribution system because additional systems create costs without adding value.我們共享一個單一的配電系統，因為系統的額外成本，創造附加價值。 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.我們可以看到，這方面的運營商本身的資金車型-他們的費用是根據房屋通過，但他們的收入是基於家庭訂閱。 If you have two distribution systems you have 2x the cost and no increase in value.如果您有兩個分配制度，你有2倍的成本和並沒有增加價值。

See also Frankston’s interesting analogy with sidewalks in an essay: “也見蘭克斯頓有趣的比喻，與人行道在一篇文章： “ Sidewalks: Paying by the Stroll人行道：支付漫步 ” “