Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:15:40 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com> Date: October 25, 2007 9:00:56 PM EDT To: "'John Levine'" <johnl () iecc com>, <dave () farber net>Subject: RE: [IP] Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad
But NN is not enough -- everyone equally disadvantaged is not enough. I want there to be every incentive to increase capacity even if it means losing control of the value chain. I want to get the full advantage of the ocean of bits and not be forced to pay a canal owner.
Yes, it means that the business model of charging for transport fails. That's Capitalism -- no guarantees. But it is a vital resource so we can easily fund it as a commons -- but unlike the old natural monopoly it's a simple common at the larger scale and more nuanced locally. I go into this more in http://www.frankston.com/? name=SATNFSM. Of course, as I keep pointing out, we’ve already paid for this infrastructure many times over.
A good start would to get those lawyers annoyed at Comcast and direct them at your local phone company that serves the USF and doesn't serve the citizens. Why can’t the city take over its own wires. Failing that, at say $1000/house it’s still a bargain to fiber the city – for the first movers the property value increase could cover it. Of course, if you want to be a sleepy burg that enjoys the ambience and facilities for the 19th century you may want to go in the opposite direction and tear down the cell towards and convert all those phone poles back into trees.
-----Original Message----- From: John Levine [mailto:johnl () iecc com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 20:45 To: dave () farber net Cc: O2RMF2 () Bobf Frankston comSubject: Re: [IP] Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad
>NN is a great meme for feeding the rage. No kidding. What ever happened to the original, reasonable meaning of net neutrality? It was that ISPs charge everyone the same price for the same service, in particular not giving their own subsidiaries and affiliates special deals unavailable to anyone else. I don't care what AT&T sells to Yahoo, so long as Yahoo's competitors can get it too at the same price. Regards,John Levine, johnl () iecc com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 25)
- Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 25)
- Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 25)
- Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 25)
- Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad David Farber (Oct 26)