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

[Jim Popovitch]

Marvin, International Martian of Mystery wrote:
> Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> Marvin, International Martian of Mystery wrote:
>>   
>>> I think all the metaphors being tossed around really just cloud the
>>> issue.   What the issue is (from my perspective) is that I'm paying my
>>> provider $XX.00 a month for X amount of bandwidth (in my case, around 50
>>> bux a month for 6mps downloads)- I'm not paying that money so Comcast
>>> can selectively limit my bandwidth when I want to connect to a content
>>> provider that didn't pay them off.  I want to be able to use my
>>> bandwidth downstream and up, the way I see fit, and that's what I'm
>>> paying for- not to connect to whom and what Comcast wants me to connect
>>> to. 
>>>     
>> Where do you see that this is not the case?  I haven't seen anything 
>> (other than on ALE) that says my "contract" with Comcast will change or 
>> be altered.  Where is all this FUD coming from?
>>   
> 
> I've read several news stories quoting folks from both sides of the
> issue- and it seems that Ma Bell & her buddies in the ISP buisness want
> to charge content providers to serve up their content faster than those
> who don't pay-up.   The only way I can think of for them to do that is
> to choke the bandwidth when you connect to non-payola sites.  

Part of that is my understanding, however the "choking" wouldn't be from 
intended action but rather inability to act (i.e. additional rollout of 
FIOS, etc) due to financial costs.  The Net Neutrality bill's intention 
is to prevent ISPs (small ones and large ones), the deliverers of 
content, from making money at the same time that the content-only 
providers are rolling in dough.  Let's take SpeedFactory as an example. 
SF can't afford all the fat pipes necessary to bring the next-gen 
Internet (online applications, VoIP that equals POTS, streaming 
on-demand entertainment, live TV news, etc) without an increase in 
capital ($$).  This bill would prevent SF from increasing revenues from 
anywhere other than the user. Instead, without this bill, SF could go 
back to Google, et.al, and negotiate a fee to offset the cost of their 
next-gen network.   Further, absence of the NetNeutrality law costs the 
user nothing, with the law comes possible user access fee increases, and 
most certainly regulatory fee increases.  Today, if either Google or SF 
didn't want to fairly negotiate, then Google risks the backlash of an 
medium sized intelligent SF user base (Google's target market).  If 
Comcast said to Google "stick it up yours, we are going to charge a 
higher-than-normal premium", Google could turn the tables on Comcast 
simply by doing nothing and Comcast would loose some customers who want 
to use Google advanced services (GoogleEarth, Spreadsheet, Video, etc).

> If it means that I'll connect to Yahoo at 6mps if they don't pay-up, and
> Google at 8mps if they do pay, I really couldn't care less.  But I just
> don't see how that could be the case...

There are two sides to the issue, and both have equal weight (IMO).
Caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") is balanced out by the ISPs' and 
web services companies' need for customers.  I think this bill's affect, 
if it goes away and doesn't become law, will further empower the 
customer without charging them considerably more for what they want.  If 
the bill becomes law, then the ISPs have no other where to look for 
capital than to the customer whether it be increased fees or pop-up ads.

Twist my argument in any direction ;-), but at least show me some 
details on how the customer will loose _without_ NetNeutrality.

-Jim P.