Re: Why I am Opposed to Net Neutrality

Ironically, the same set of messages on my newsgroup that contained the first couple of posts in this thread also had a subsequent post which said

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2004 decision by telecommunications regulators allowing regional phone companies to deploy new fiber-optic lines without having to share them with competitors.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a legal challenge by Internet service provider EarthLink Inc. aimed at overturning a decision by the Federal Communications Commission.

The court said it was "permissible" for the FCC to absolve the dominant local telephone carriers, known as the Baby Bells, of sharing requirements when it comes to new fiber optic networks.

Come on, guys!

The capacity of even a single optical fiber is so immense that it makes absolutely no sense, economically, socially, or any other way, to have competing information providers repeatedly tear up public streets, sidewalks, and rights of way to provide multiple fibers, cables or wires into my house.

If AT&T or Comcast want to negotiate franchise deals with my community to run fibers or cables along public rights of way to reach my house (at, admittedly, very considerable expense to them), I'll be more than happy to pay them a fair price for the continued use of that infrastructure -- provided that once I pay that fair price, I can use this infrastructure to reach any and all the different places on the Information Highway that I want to reach over it, and to access any and all of the different competitive information services that will want to serve me over that infrastructure, with no control or interference by them.

Maybe I misunderstand the initial posts, but if AT&T or whoever can use public rights of way to build this infrastructure, and then only let it be used to access electronic services *they* provide, merchants

*they* own, entertainment sources *they* are selling -- are you really trying to tell me this is going to promote competition and innovation in any of these areas?

Completely open use of that infrastructure by anyone who wants to pay them just the fair transmission costs of sending bits over it (appropriate depreciation costs of course included) is the sine qua non of their being allowed to build it over public rights of way.

And secondarily, but far from trivial, once I've paid for the fair use of this infrastructure, I don't want AT&T or whoever monitoring or recording the specific bits I send over it, for any purpose whatsoever (things like court-ordered -- and it better be court ordered -- "wiretapping" excepted).

If I go to the the Borders Books site over their fiber and search for books on home finance, I don't want AT&T noting this and selling my name to Joe's Sleazy Home Loan Service (and is there any other kind). If AT&T is the corporate parent of North Face, I don't want them deliberately giving me speedy connections to the North Face web site, but only a slow and deliberately bit-dropping link to Lands End -- or worse, "accidentally" misdirecting me from the latter web site to the former. And if anyone doesn't think these kinds of things, and worse, can and will happen, you must have never in your life used a broadband link.

Once we've paid the fair and limited transmission costs to the builder of the local information infrastructure, our use of any physical broadband connections to the worldwide Information Highway should be as absolutely open, free, uncontrolled and anonymous as our use of city streets and State and County roads to reach the U.S. Interstate freeway system, once we've paid our taxes and auto license fees. That's what "network neutrality" means to me -- and it's absolutely nonnegotiable.

Reply to
AES
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.