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

[Jim Popovitch]

runman wrote:
> 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 ?

They aren't paying for my and your side of the pipe, just theirs.  Read 
up on all the issues surrounding peering to gain better insight.

> 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.

Hmmmmm.

> 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.  

Actually, if you took the time to look into water, electrical, and gas 
practices you *will* see higher prices for more pressure and flow. 
Water is measured in thousands of gallons, BUT if you want more water 
pressure you can get it at a price.  Probably not at your house though.

BTW, right now I get water at home at whatever pressure the water 
company sees fit.  If I wanted more... it would cost $$.  Interestingly 
enough my sewage (i.e. upstream) rates are now 3 times my clean water 
(i.e. downstream) rates and the pressure and flow are still the same.

GA Power rates are pretty stable, but I'm sure they will go up soon. 
And if I use more power running the AC this Summer... guess what... the 
Power company will charge me *more*... the nerve of them. ;-)

> 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 ?

You bet.  They also requlate it with a "gas regulator" which regulates 
pressure.  You want more pressure (and therefore more gas), you pay for 
it.  Now, if you wanted gas from Minnesota Gas delivered over your 
Atlanta gas line, don't you think the gas company would laugh at you?

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

Geeze.  All telcoms?  Everyone at every telcom?  Generalizing aren't you?

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

Have you ever bothered to look at their reasoning behind that?  Google 
for "Ringer Equivalency Number".

> * 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

Are those black helicopters hovering over your place again?  ;-)

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

That's pretty skewed.  OK, so they sometimes are slow to act, but so are 
most large bureaucratic entities.

> * 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 ?

What's "local" in the Internet?

> 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 ...

Where do you come up with this stuff?  You could get a job writing 
Hollywood scripts, seriously. ;-)

> 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.

The UPS analogy (provided by James) was about the cost of a transaction, 
not the startup of UPS or a telcom.  You are looking way past the 
analogy and reaching far in the back for an excuse (based on start-up 
history) to invalidate something you dislike.

> 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.

...you don't say...  ;-)

-Jim P.