Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 com
Subject: 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