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

[Kenneth W Cochran]

Any way to fix this?  I get a number of messages from this
list that are similarly mangled.  The only "mod" I did was
putting a ">" at the beginning of each line (using vi :).
(And in case there are any vi newbies here, the syntax for that
would be ":%s/^/>/", omitting the quotation marks of course. :)

-kc

>To: ale at ale.org
>From: Brian Pitts <bpitts at learnlink.emory.edu>
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:19:57 +0000 (UTC)
>Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Craig Newmark of Craig's List on Net Neutrality
>X-Virus-Status: Clean
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by TheWorld.com id k5M4M8gq016592
>Status: RO
>
>I'm a fan of this post at http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/451
>Net Neutrality in One Page - A RebuttalSubmitted by Chris Johns on June 12, 2006 - 2:52pm.
>A disturbing trend with regard to the whole Net Neutrality issue isdisinformation. Sites have sprung up around the Internet (many sponsored byphone and cable companies), acting as “astroturf” sites - coalitions that appearto be grass-roots in nature and composed of a “nationwide coalition of Internetusers” (HandsOff.org). In reality, they are merely sites that rely on falsedefinitions and don’t answer the questions we have. As you may have seen inGigi’s post, there is confusion and disinformation revolving around the issue ofNet Neutrality.
>    …the staffer asked whether, if we require broadband network providers not todiscriminate in favor of content, applications and services in which they have afinancial interest, should we not require the same from search engines likeGoogle, Yahoo and MSN? The reasoning goes like this - just like there are twodominant broadband network providers, there are two, maybe three dominant searchengines, so shouldn’t the latter be required to be neutral in their searches andsponsored links as well?…
>The issue isn’t about search engines’ preferential treatment of sponsors. Itisn’t about degrading customers’ access speeds to the Internet. It’s not aboutchanging how the Internet gets to your door, and it is definitely not aboutmaking it impossible for EMTs to transmit patient information over the Internet.This debate is about whether the phone and cable companies can break the currentfabric of the Internet - whether they can look at the packets going over theirlines, and block or degrade access based on how much protection money theirclients have paid them. It’s as simple as that.
>Yet many organizations persist on coloring and blurring the issue at hand. Theiroverarching claim? They need the extra money to “build the internet of thefuture”. That’s a very nice phrase - but they’ve already been given $200 billiondollars in tax breaks, over the past 15 years, to build this “Internet of thefuture”.
>Read on for a Question-and-Answer session that one site posted - their answersdivert your attention from the issues, and urge you to accept flawed definitionsand disinformation.
>>From NetCompetition.org:
>*      “Doesn’t the Internet already have tiers?” They answer Yes, saying thatyou’re “able to choose from a variety of Internet access tiers” - such asdial-up, broadband, WiFi access, etc. They also cite peering agreements that arebased on bandwidth.
>      This is a distraction from the actual issue - it’s not that we’ll wake upon Friday and find that we’re back to the days of dial-up. Tiers do exist - aswell they should. Someone who pays more for their Internet access should get afaster connection to the Internet. Google certainly pays a lot more than you orI do.
>      What should not happen is to charge companies like Google, Yahoo, etc. fortheir access, then charge them again, based on the fact that they deliver videocontent to users. Or music. Or news. They’ve already paid - why charge themagain? This is what Net Neutrality fears the most.   *      “Are all bits treated equally on the Internet today?” They answer No,restating the above argument that everyone has a different access speed. Theyalso digress into the various network prioritizations - like law enforcement andnetwork security.
>      This is a false analogy. These are legitimate uses of packetdiscrimination which benefit society at large, that don’t discriminate based oncustomers or payment. Representative Markey’s amendment covered this - there isa section about making sure emergency communications are not affected byNeutrality. Unfortunately, it was voted down. Regardless, Net Neutrality isn’tabout prohibiting packet reprioritizations - only those that give unfaireconomic advantages to select corporations.    *      “Are all websites treated equally today?” They answer no, citing the factthat websites receive special treatment in search engines; by paying money tothe search company, they receive premium placement when a user looks forspecific terms.
>      This argument doesn’t relate to Net Neutrality at all - another falseanalogy. Search engine placement is like having a billboard with your phonenumber on the highway - not everyone can buy one, but not having one meanscustomers can still call you.    *      “Is there sufficient broadband competition?” The answer they give is“Yes. Competition is flourishing and increasing. In addition to cable modems,DSL, WiFi and satellite broadband, there are increasingly, 3-5 wirelessbroadband options and broadband over power lines.”
>      In many areas, there are only two broadband providers - cable internet,and DSL. Competition isn’t really that present - sometimes there are incentivesto change providers, but generally those come with heavy cancellation fees.Also, with more and more cable companies getting into the phone service arena,breaking neutrality opens the door for more incidents where Internet ServiceProviders block Voice-over-IP service. In addition, power-line broadband isavailable in very few areas.    *      “Is net neutrality — neutral?” The reply is “No. There’s nothing neutralabout the government: dictating one and only one way to design networks;creating an innovation double standard where innovation at the edge of thenetwork is encouraged but discouraged inside the network; or rigging the game bypicking winners before the game is played.”    *      “Would net neutrality discourage innovation?” They reply Yes, citing anOrwellian situation and noting that “net neutr!
 ality proposes that the only wayto protect innovation is to restrict it,” and that “Net neutrality mandatessameness”.
>      These questions use a flawed definition of “neutral”. Packetreprioritizing, as mentioned above, is already in place - network security, lawenforcement, and emergency medical services rely on it. Don’t believe the shill- there isn’t any threat to innovation. The only “innovation” that we might loseout on is an economic one - finding new ways to charge customers. As for pickingwinners? Changing packet order to benefit those that can pay extra, and hurtingthose who can’t - now that’s picking the winners beforehand.    *      “Would net neutrality reverse current Congressional policy toward theInternet?”    *      “Would net neutrality reverse the competition purpose of the 1996 TelecomAct?” Their reply is “Yes” to both.
>      Up until last year, DSL and cable providers were classified as “commoncarriers” - basically, they have to transmit the data they receive withoutdiscrimination. From doing so, they are immune from what actually passes overtheir wires. They were reclassified as “information services”, something they’vefought to get for a long time. They are no longer subject to common carrierrestrictions, though their services are used by the public. So no, NetNeutrality wouldn’t reverse policy. It would keep policy consistent.    *      “Are there potential unintended consequences from net neutrality?” Ofcourse, their answer is a resounding Yes:
>          Sweeping and rigid net neutrality legislation could: hinder publicsafety and homeland security; complicate protecting Americans privacy; erode thequality and responsiveness of the Internet; limit consumers’ competitivechoices; and discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans.
>      Aside from the first two unsubstantiated claims, looks like a qualityargument. Let’s turn that around for a second, using their answer as a rebuttal:
>      Are there potential unintended consequences from non-Net Neutrality?
>      Yes. Losing Network Neutrality could: “erode the quality andresponsiveness on the Internet” (except when going to a select few sites thatcan pay extra); “limit consumers’ competitive choices” (since you won’t be ableto get to the little guys’ websites, because they can’t pay the protectionmoney); and “discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans”(there was an amendment that would force ISPs to build their services out toareas that have no broadband access. It was shot down). The incentive to buildout their lines is gone. The incentive to do anything except make money is gone.
>What’s left? Charging racketeering fees to “guarantee higher service”.
>
>_______________________________________________Ale mailing listAle at ale.orghttp://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>