<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Senator To AT&#38;T: You Don&#8217;t Own The Net</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jefflundberg.com/blog/2006/03/02/senator-to-att-you-dont-own-the-net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jefflundberg.com/blog/2006/03/02/senator-to-att-you-dont-own-the-net/</link>
	<description>no fuss, just the blog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: nick</title>
		<link>http://jefflundberg.com/blog/2006/03/02/senator-to-att-you-dont-own-the-net/#comment-851</link>
		<dc:creator>nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Mar 2006 05:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jefflundberg.dyndns.org/blog/2006/03/02/senator-to-att-you-dont-own-the-net/#comment-851</guid>
		<description>what this sounds like is a plan to double-dip.

you pay your telco for internet access, in turn, they provide you a connection to the rest of the internet.  your company, along with mine, also pay for that same service.  

for example, google also pays their telco(s) for their (many) connection(s) to the internet(s.)

he who provides a faster and more reliable connection gets the contract.  always has.  always will.  for the telcos to come in and double-dip for service like this is retarded.

when middle-point providers start charging for more for "extra bandwidth" through the middle, then endpoint providers will start routing around them.  middle-point providers have a vested interest in keeping those connections like they are today.

each access provider wins, as they provide connectivity for different end users, different middle-points, and different content providers.

granted, i'm thinking of the endpoints of the internet.  the ends justify the means/middle.  end-users and customers win.  content providers win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what this sounds like is a plan to double-dip.</p>
<p>you pay your telco for internet access, in turn, they provide you a connection to the rest of the internet.  your company, along with mine, also pay for that same service.  </p>
<p>for example, google also pays their telco(s) for their (many) connection(s) to the internet(s.)</p>
<p>he who provides a faster and more reliable connection gets the contract.  always has.  always will.  for the telcos to come in and double-dip for service like this is retarded.</p>
<p>when middle-point providers start charging for more for &#8220;extra bandwidth&#8221; through the middle, then endpoint providers will start routing around them.  middle-point providers have a vested interest in keeping those connections like they are today.</p>
<p>each access provider wins, as they provide connectivity for different end users, different middle-points, and different content providers.</p>
<p>granted, i&#8217;m thinking of the endpoints of the internet.  the ends justify the means/middle.  end-users and customers win.  content providers win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
