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

[Knight Walker]

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:44 -0700, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> I thought everyone already knew I work for ArosNet already.  Sorry for 
> not being so super specific.

You might have. I may have missed that message.

> 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.

Most of the coverage maps that I've seen (i.e. those that have been
approved to show to outside parties) lie, or at the very least
exaggerate to make themselves look better. Most coverage maps don't take
into account wiring problems that Qwest doesn't want to deal with (e.g.
splitting wiring for an apartment complex, thereby rendering anything
outside the normal 32kbit voice channel impossible).  They also don't
take into account how many people are using a particular cable node,
rendering it nearly useless between the hours of 5pm and 10:30.

> 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.

Retarded you say? Cable and telco companies are only interested in
places they believe they can make a profit.  This means that if you're
in an area that they're not already servicing, there has to be enough in
it for them to go to that area.  That's why it took them years to reach
me, all the wile they squabbled over the remains of a fiber-optic
service provider that was put in when the subdivision was created.  They
waited three years until enough units had been completed to care.

> 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.

Mere nine months after cable came, which was three years after I moved
in and five years after the first units were competed.  And all the
while, when I called, Comcast told me "We're looking at a build-out in
12-18 months" and Qwest told me "We have no plans for that area, call
back in six months."

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

As all the legislation I've heard about in the last few years has wont
to be.

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

Broadband users in most areas have choice.

> 3. ISPs have choice of backbone providers.  ILECs are required by law to 
> provide this choice.

Didn't you hear? ILECS have been trying to get this requirement removed.
They made this concession back in 1996 when they were all trying to get
into the long-distance market, before the bottom fell out of it.  Now
that they can't get people to pay per-minute for phone service, they've
been trying to get all CLEC requirements removed.

>     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.

So is using dial-up, but when it locks you out of doing certain things
and makes you a second-class citizen, and when you are a regular
consumer and don't know you're being swindled anyway, what kind of
choice is it?

> 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.

Because cable companies got the FCC to classify them as "Information
Services" rather than communication services, so they aren't bound by
the same rules as ILECs are. We did notice. There was a big lawsuit
about it a few years ago.  Personally, I was on the side that wanted
them to open up their networks to competition.  I'm a big fan of
customer choice too, which is why I went with DSL over cable.  I wanted
an ISP that hasn't written draconian TOS rules and will happily cut me
off for a year.  That's why I'm a fan of UTOPIA, but if they're going to
meter every byte of data that flows over my connection, that may staunch
my enthusiasm somewhat.

-KW