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

[Jim Popovitch]

Jim Philips wrote:
> 
> Where do you NOT see it? This whole debate was tipped off when the CTO of 
> BellSouth went before Congress arguing for his company's right to charge 
> high-bandwidth providers an extra fee for the extra burden they place on his 
> networks. 

Your earlier arguments were centered around "average joes" (i.e. 
_users_) not high-bandwidth _providers_ as you mention above.

> He specifically mentioned providers like Yahoo and Google (but 
> other big names were implied) and to offer those players a fast lane. 

Yahoo and Google, as they provide more services, burden the networks 
provided by the investments of private ISPs... causing those ISPs to 
have to invest more $$ to provide more bandwidth.  Would you rather your 
ISP rolled that cost back on to you?  How about a law that says that due 
to an increase in web-based applications, and in order to keep a level 
playing field, the Fed Govt will add an 8% tax on to every broadband 
bill and then funnel that money back to the broadband companies (a'la 
the Al Gore Telcom tax)

> Once that principle is established, do you really think it will stop with them? 
> And if the pricing is set by what big companies are able to pay, then simple 
> economics should tell you that smaller players will quickly be priced out. 

I don't see that anywhere in the bill.  All the bill calls for is large 
users contributing some money back to those they (over) use.  This is 
the same as AOL's new practice of accepting money from bulk (but good) 
emailers who don't want any delays or hassles in having their email 
delivered.

> It isn't at all misplaced to think that this could bring an end to the era of 
> freely downloadable Linux distros on the Net.

BS... more FUD.

-Jim P.