[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

["Bill S" <unixluv@gmail.com>]

On Nov 8, 2007 7:03 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote:
> A common misunderstanding drives a lot of what's written about net
> neutrality. When Ed Whiteacre made his famous remark to the effect that
> "Google wasn't going to use his pipes for free," the subject under
> discussion was HDTV. Like Verizon, AT&T has made an investment in its
> infrastructure, upgrading it so that they could deliver a TV product
> that could compete on favorable terms with Cable (Verizon made a serious
> investment, AT&T not so much.) The "pipes" Whiteacre was talking about
> were the IPTV pipes, but the confusion between IPTV and the Internet
> permitted a wild controversy to be created around Whiteacre's remark.
>
> A more direct statement was made by the former CEO of the former Bell
> South about offering some sort of mystically accelerated delivery which
> would, if taken seriously, be especially threatening to companies who've
> invested very heavily in massive server farms or Akamai-like
> relationships in order to reduce response times. The Bell South remark
> is typically attributed to AT&T by urban legend.
>
> This is a round-about way of agreeing that the term net neutrality means
> so many things to so many people that it's not really useful.
> Rationalizing service contracts with FCC principles is a concrete and
> achievable goal; enforcing some vague notion of "neutrality" is not.
>

I think the general premise of anti-NN is flawed, on a par with the
RIAA suing its customers.  Same mentality.  Its all about denial.

Here in anti-NN, we are saying to the users... you can't do that.  No,
to Bit-torrent, no to gnutella, no to streaming video. no no no no

RIAA is saying the same thing... no to our content, no to sharing your
most loved music with your BFF.  No, unless it fits our model.

We should be working to a yes.  The RIAA should be kicked in the teeth
by their stockholders because the management of the cartel companies
had no vision, no foresight. They had a market opportunity, and
instead of exploiting it, they whined, moaned and sued when others
were first to market.

Likewise, big ISPs are doing the same... same pattern...lets piss off
the customers.  Lets bite the hand that feeds us.  What are they going
to do when some innovator somewhere, finds a magic bullet to do them
in?  The management of certain big ISPs need to be fired for lack of
vision.

We in NN, should be advocating solutions that improve the situation
instead of bickering over definitions.  We should be showing the
Comcasts of the world how to profit by giving the customers what they
want.  Customers are reasonable people (well most of them anyways) and
will pay a fair price to get what they want.  Offer them a pipe
unencumbered with port blocks and traffic shaping at a given price.
The ones that want it will pay.  Others won't.  Thats what a free
market is all about..  which takes me to a near and dear topic...

Most ISPs do not operate in a free market.  Most own the
infrastructure that connects them to the users.  They have an
effective monopoly.  I don't advocate changing that yet, but it needs
to be understood.  In most places, users have precious few options for
broadband access, and have little choice to move.  Given the topic of
NN, it is obvious that the users cannot use free market powers to
eliminate a bad ISP.  I think we should also work to a solution that
lets the users have more choices for a fair price.

The EU is way ahead of us in bringing broadband to the users.  Most
rural users in the US still depend on dialup or satellite.  Either
offers horrible performance.  We need to partner with networking
companies and work to offer broadband everywhere at a good price.
When that happens, NN won't be an option when an ISP finds all its
users leaving.