Richard Bennett is doing an excellent job of laying into the absurd and faux-technical sophistry of the net neutrality crowd. He understands that the current Internet is simply not designed for the coming wave of real-time applications. His arguments are in line with mine that all technical options need to be on the table, and to preclude them by law is an abomination.
In previous posts, I have said that I would agree with neutrality — to the extent that we can even define it — if that’s what the market chooses. I am even beginning to back away from that assertion.
Richard points out the the current architecture of the ‘net was designed around delivering email to weapons scientists. As such, a “best effort” net was OK, based on an assumption of intermittency and asynchronous (non-real-time) communications. In many ways, this architecture was revolutionary; it is resilient and durable in less than ideal circumstances, and is a good platform for non-technical folks. No small accomplishment.
That said, I have come to realize that, yes, real-time bits should — must — be given priority over non-real-time bits. A one-second delay is perfectly acceptable for an email message, but a deal-breaker for video. Like every other market, efficiency and growth require a prioritization of resources. Neutrality legislation would make this illegal.
We need to grow up if we are to move forward. Sites like YouTube are great but the future is not in artifact-ridden, 4-inch-wide video. It’s cute, but it’s not even up to the standards of 1960s era TV. The question is, where do we want to be in 2010?
Comments