Date:         Sun, 14 May 2000 14:58:54 -0700
Reply-To:     Bill Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bill Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Subject:      Re: Fw: HILL VOTES ON IP REGULATION TUESDAY: SOS
Comments: To: David Beierl <dbeierl@IBM.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

So what! What does this have to do with Vanagons?
Or are we just so bored we have to get into the politics of the web?

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Beierl" <dbeierl@IBM.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: HILL VOTES ON IP REGULATION TUESDAY: SOS


> At 17:51 5/14/2000, J. Kelly wrote:
> >Huh?
>
> Now that we've established that HR 1291 is a real bill, that it did indeed
> pass out of committee on Friday, and that it explicitly declares the
> possibility of access charges to providers of voice services on the
Internet...
>
> ...the interesting (to some) question is whether it is a good or a bad
> thing that this bill should become law.  The opposing interests, at least
> on the face of things, are those who use the Internet for telephony, who
> wish the cost to be distributed amongst everyone as it is now; and those
> who do not so use the Internet, who might rather wish that the voice users
> pay for their own bandwidth.
>
> However the situation could be (and no doubt is) argued in a number of
> directions, such as: If I have to pay for voice bandwidth, why shouldn't
> you have to pay for downloading pictures, and most especially for
> video?  Why shouldn't there be a surcharge for people with enormous
> websites that take a lot of bandwidth to load?  Why shouldn't there be a
> surcharge for people with very popular websites that generate enormous
> amounts of traffic.  Et cetera.
>
> :)
> david
> David Beierl - Providence, RI
>   http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
> '84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
> '85 GL "Poor Relation"
>