FREE LUNCH!

Well, not really. It's actually a free camera.

I thought about selling my F-601QD, but eBay gets pennies for these things so I might as well give it away. It's been with me ever since the last year of high school, and has seen several continents and as many countries as I have. However, I'm not using it, and can use the space more than sentimental value.

Here's what you want to know:

• It's an autofocus Nikon film SLR.
  
• It was known as the N6006 in the US. The QD is a quartz date function, which I don't believe was ever available in the States. (It can print icky orange dates/times on the corner of the picture if you want it to -- or just use it as a watch.)
  
• It has a built-in flash.
  
• It takes auto and manual focus lenses, with the exception of the new G, VR and AF-S series. Way too much detail if you care. Bottom line--it takes most Nikon lenses made in the last two decades.
  
• It has spot, center weighted and matrix metering -- just like cameras two decades later!
  
• It can be fully manual, fully automatic, and everything in between.
  
• It's well used and looks it, but very solid. Metal frame, plastic body.
  
• Instruction manual can be had here.
  
• It was an excellent camera in 1990, and has aged well. It doesn't have the fastest AF, or the fanciest flash metering, but it still holds its own.
  
• I don't have any lenses to give away with it.
  

Net Neutrality

Background

Here's how the Internet currently works:

A number of incumbent telecommunications carriers that have done this for a while, or have acquired companies that have done this for a while, have the infrastructure -- fiber optic links, transmission facilities, routers -- that comprise the bulk of the internet backbone.

These companies also have the majority of peering arrangements -- free or not-free interchange of traffic with other carriers, well-known AS numbers and other intangible bureaucractic and institutional capital.

The companies described above are called tier-1 companies. They are the ones Microsoft and Google and large ISPs may go to to buy Internet service from. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any new company to become a tier-1. The spat between Level 3 and Cogent a while back was Level 3 telling Cogent that they really weren't a tier-1 and needed to fork over mucho cash if they wanted access to the Internet served by Level 3. Cogent disagreed, and the Internet more or less split for a while.

Consequently, the carriers on top of the pyramid, the tier-1s, pass traffic between each other without charge and arbitrary speeds, after all, each have customers that want to talk to the customers on the other carriers.

Then there are tier-2 companies. These are large ISPs, who may resell Internet service and other telecommunications services, but have to pay one or more tier-1 companies for their own access. They buy Internet service in bulk, chop it up, add services and value, transport it closer to the user, and resell it for a margin. Large corporations and institutions, including small ISPs go to tier-2 companies for their services.

Finally, there are tier-3 companies. These can be regional ISPs, or just smaller telecommunications firms. They pay a tier-2 (or, sometimes, a tier-1) for their service, and resell it to individual end users and small companies, perhaps building wireless point-to-point links or free space optics within a metropolitan area or do more specialized stuff. An ISP in a mountainous region in north Georgia serving a few counties, for example, would fall into this category.

Who Pays?

The end user, such as myself, pays a cable modem provider for internet access. The cable modem provider uses some of that money for its own expenses, some for its own profits, and some of it to pay for its own internet service from a tier-2 or tier-1. In the case of a tier-2, rinse and repeat.

The large content providers, such as web hosting companies or Google, pay for their own internet service just the same as the end user. If Google wants a gigabit link to a bunch of their servers, there's a going rate for that. You can get a carrier to provide gigabit Internet connectivity to your house too, but it's not going to be cheap.

Current Debacle

Tier-1s are arguing that they're not seeing their fair share; that although they are charging Google and such, they are using too much resources. They want to be able to sell "better" and "normal" (a.k.a. crappy) service, to milk companies that want to stream video or other bandwidth intensive content. Opponents are claiming that this will destroy democracy.

My Take

The debate is almost as much poppycock as the current immigration discussion. Nobody's getting a free ride. If a carrier thinks Google isn't paying it enough, they need to hike Google's rate. Except at that point someone else offers Google a better deal, and there it goes. Ooops. Even if Google were to magically get free Internet, all the end users are paying for their service! Nobody's giving any part of that away for free either! It's like a phone call where both the caller and callee are paying a fee; now the phone company wants to charge you extra for good voice quality.

Caveat: I'm perfectly okay with a carrier charging extra for service that has quality of service quarantees--low jitter or delay, for example; and there is a thicket of impossible and archaic telecom legislation making everything unnecessarily complicated.

Troubling corollary: If major carriers begin to treat traffic differently depending on source, destination or content, it enables the framework necessary for censoring or prioritizing content. Having that inherent ability means that it will be, sooner or later, used. I'd rather not see that happen.

Homework

Class, discuss. Point out where I'm going wrong, or where I'm being unclear.