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

[runman]

And just what makes you think that Yahoo, Google, and others ** aren't **
paying their fair share ?  After you get past residential and even low level
SOHO accounts you pay by the MB/GB/TB.  I am quite certain that Yahoo,
Google, et al's monthly ISP bill is larger than yours and mine combined.
Somehow I don't think they are on a Platinum level Speedfactory account
using DSL that goes out every now and then.  So .. they are ***ALREADY**
paying for their huge connections.  And you and the telecoms want to make
them pay "again" ???  And just what **EXACTLY* does this cost the telecoms ?

I would for one like to see an itemized list of what Yahoo and Google have
"cost" the phone companies THAT THEY CANNOT/ARE NOT CHARGING FOR ALREADY.
No one has forced them to go to DSL, etc.  They could still be on 56K
modems, POTS, and nothing else. But noooo the telcoms saw a need and built
more so they could charge more and so they could fill customers needs (for a
price of course).  Evidence is in the fact that a dial up connection is
about $10 to $20 and DSL is about $60 and T3's and higher are more - waaaay
more.  So **they are already charging more for bandwidth** - the
speed/priority of sites is just a function of the technology that the
$^^%#^$ at Cisco started putting into routers a while back "in anticipation"
of something like the present legislation.  How coincidental.

A better analogy is this : It's like the water company making you pay for
pressure. "Oh, Mr. Popovitch the bill you have gotten in the past was just
for the water itself ... because of new legislation your **new** bill is for
the pressure ... you want some pressure too - right ??? "  And if you say no
- ok.  You will still pay for water but at whatever pressure the water
company sees fit to give you.  Better hope your water company isn't too
greedy or that they don?t get any water from someone who expects them to pay
more to put any pressure behind it.  And according to your UPS analogy you
can use on of many different water companies.  I don't know about you but I
am pretty locked into a single water company.

Another is gas.  You can get it from many companies but one and one only
owns the lines to your house.  Do they charge you for pressure as well as
gas ?

The bottom line is that the telcoms have a long and sordid history of greed
and irresponsibility - 

* will only allow me to "rent" their phone and no one else's (for all you
old timers out there)

* want imminent domain and don't want to pay me to run their lines thru my
property but they don't want the government to oversee them in exchange for
the right and to make them "play nice" in exchange

* totally don't want to be responsible for content (either phone or
Internet) but refuse to clamp down on abusers.

* can't create any Internet business dealing with a service or content
themselves on one hand but are jealous of others who do and want to horn in
on someone else's business.

* just see this as another money making venture.  What's next - we have to
pay more for any sites we visit that aren't' local ?

Anytime any big monopolistic company wants legislation passed there is a
certainty that their customers will get screwed in the bargain.

So.  If you are an independent consultant how willing are you to tell your
clients that they need to pay more for an Internet presence ?  ... think
some of them will just pass on the whole deal ?? ... or if you work for a
firm that is dependant on the Internet are you willing to get a pink slip so
they can afford to pay a telecom the Internet equivalent of The Mob's
"protection money" to stay in business ?? I would hope that if either is the
case you won't be on this forum whining about that which you are advocating
now.  If all the "little guys" that use the Internet and those which have
carved out a business on it (big and small) are against this legislation how
can you be for it ?  Gee ... let's see ... those who created and use the
Internet vs. those who are already making money on it and have contributed
nothing to create vis a vis content but just happened to own the lines they
got by imminent domain and use equipment they chose to buy ...

And btw - the analogy with UPS etc is a crock.  The telcoms started out (and
pretty much still are) a government aided monopoly while UPS is a business
that doesn't have 100% of the package business.

I honestly can't believe we are having this discussion on the ALE list. This
should be something that every Internet user should be concerned about and
should oppose most vigorously.  Even Aaron is on the majority with this one
;-)  For me to put up with the telecoms "techno-censoring" content based on
who wants/can pay **again** is infuriating.


Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Jim
To: ale at ale.org
Popovitch
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:59 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Craig Newmark of Craig's List on Net Neutrality

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.


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006