Re: LARIAT comments to the FCC regarding Comcast

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:54 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: [IP] Re:  LARIAT comments to the FCC regarding Comcast

I’m expanding upon I comments I made to NNSquad.

We need to extremely be careful to make sure we don’t forget the larger issues in getting so focused on temporary 
anomalies. We are letting arguments about the accidental properties of telecom make use forgot that the Internet is not 
about services and providers – it’s about discovering what is possible and driving a dynamic. Making sure that what we 
have now is works like it always did gives us no opportunity beyond what we already have. In all the talk about the 
threat of P2P I have seen no mention of the many startup companies taking advantage of the technology to create new 
products and solutions that have nothing to do with entertainment and everything to do with doing business.

Comparing Lariat with Verizon in terms of public policy doesn't make sense. Unlike the large ISPs it doesn't have 
exclusive control over people's ability to communicate. It's more like a local diner than a supermarket. It's not a 
connectivity provider and if people choose to buy Lariat's SERVICES that's up to them.

What we should be talking about are the implications of giving a small number of companies control over our ability to 
communicate. The real question is not whether ISPs can manage their networks. The real question is why ISPs own our 
networks.

Once you've given up not just control but ownership of the henhouses to the foxes the game is over. The question we 
must ask is why have given the foxes control? We're left with little to ask other than how many hens do foxes need to 
meet their own nutritional needs before the rest of us get any. The answer is a lot and fundamental problem  is that 
the carriers’ service revenue is threatened by abundance and their data revenue is threatened by abundance. So instead 
they must by their very definition limit themselves to managing scarcity.

Why does Comcast put so much effort into throttling traffic with no hint of any effort to remove the bottleneck? 
Whatever my concerns are about Verizon they have chosen to invest in capacity. If this is a wise investment then why 
isn’t Comcast doing the same. If it is not then isn’t it an indication that they shouldn’t we be asking why we have put 
in them in such a terrible bind – having to choose between the need to prevent the future and our need to realize the 
future?

If the FCC hasn't learned the most basic lesson of marketplaces from CLEC debacle and if it is structurally incapable 
of seeing anything in terms of connectivity rather than services then we are wasting time petitioning an institution 
which is protecting its children and is a clear danger to our economy and our must fundamental rights.

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com