[ale] OT: Craig Newmark of Craig's List on Net Neutrality

[Jim Popovitch]

J. D. wrote:
>      That is a wonderful example of a nasty mess Jim. To me this should 
> really be a no brainer. It isn't fair at all and is completely against 
> what I feel the Internet is about. Not to pull a chicken little here but 
> isn't it really going down the tubes if availability is controlled by 
> companies that could/would have a vested interest?

Just because someone has the power to do something, it doesn't mean they 
will.  For instance, Comcast can disconnect my cable at any time, with 
no recourse...but it's not in their interest.

Consider this:  Suppose Speakeasy wants to over VoIP to their customers. 
    Speakeasy pays a significant upfront cost for offering DSL/Broadband 
at $$/month, so it takes years before a subscription really pays it's 
fair share (given the costs and expectations of 
datacenters/uptime/services these days).  So, I think it is perfectly 
legit for Speakeasy to not want Earthlink or Comcast to be able to offer 
an equal, but free or discounted, VoIP service to Speakeasy customers 
with the intention of luring those customers into long term contracts 
including moving them away from Speakeasy.

I think Net Neutrality had it's day when the NSF ruled the Internet, and 
those days are long gone.  It's a dog-eat-dog world now (look no further 
then the underlying issues with spam, hosting, and peering) and big dogs 
protect their turf.  I personally think Net Neutrality would cause 
investors to invest less in the new "shared" infrastructure thus 
producing many more problems down the road.

Imagine if Congress declared the sidewalk in front of your home could 
be used for my next picnic.... and worse, you could be excluded from 
partaking in the festivities. ;-)

-Jim P.