Net Neutrality (was Re: [sllug-members]: Comcast has problems)

[Lonnie Olson]

Knight Walker wrote:
> That was sort of my point.  Lonnie said he works for an ISP, but didn't
> specify which. I'm assuming it's not Comcast.  Therefore these people
> living in Comcast-only areas aren't his customers and he doesn't hear
> from them.  I also know the area I live in was once said to be "sparsely
> populated", since there were maybe 100 houses surrounded by square miles
> of fields, and Comcast and Qwest weren't interested.  Comcast became
> interested first, then a few months later, Qwest did, but that was three
> years after I had moved in and the only option I had for broadband was a
> fly-by-night WISP that couldn't get their act together.

I thought everyone already knew I work for ArosNet already.  Sorry for 
not being so super specific.

I have seen DSL coverage maps of our valley as well as planned coverage 
maps from Qwest.  I know Qwest's plans are often full of hot air, but 
even the current coverage maps aren't too bad.  I haven't seen any 
coverage maps for Comcast, but based on talks to customers, and lots of 
possible customers, their coverage isn't much bigger.

Saying that that any company is only interested in current customers and 
not interested in non-customers is completely retarded.  Sales people 
talk to lots of non-customers, and they have told me that the percentage 
of non-customers that do qualify for cable, but not DSL is extremely low.

Your anecdote proves my point even further.  Your area was picked up by 
Qwest mere months after cable was available.  Hence the incredibly 
shrinking cable only areas.


But anyway, this is just nagging on a very small point of mine.

My focus points against legislation are:

1. All proposed legislation so far has been extremely restrictive and 
dangerous.

2. Broadband users do have choice.  This choice gives power to the 
customers, and works in this Free Market.

3. ISPs have choice of backbone providers.  ILECs are required by law to 
provide this choice.
    a. Choosing limited or sabotaged backbones because they are cheap is 
still a choice.  Not a good one if you want to keep customers, but is 
still a choice.

If either choice is removed, and/or legislation can be written well, I 
will consider the alternative.

Side note, Why isn't anyone complaining, campaigning, legislating, 
restricting cable companies?  How is it that they get away with their 
monopolistic practices w/o anyone noticing?  ILECs have had their hands 
tied by the law (as it is necessary).  If cable companies were required 
to allow access to other ISPs as well then this whole Net Neutrality 
debate wouldn't be necessary.

--lonnie