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

[Marvin, International Martian of Mystery]

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 ?
>   

And that's the the reality of the situation in a nutshell.


> 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.
>   

I'm willing to bet that there's a whole lot of "traditional" content
providers working behind the scenes for this, as well.  I'll be
surprised if it isn't passed, as the vested politickal interests of the
bi-party are rooted in having a near-monopoly access to media.