On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:13 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said: > >> ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality >> in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network >> Neutrality", http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63. > > All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what the provider is or is > not providing to Joe Sixpack - point 1 says discriminatory plans are OK as > long > as the discriminatory are on display in the cellar of the ISP office, with no > stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory > with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard. > > And points 2 and 3 are saying that this should all be overseen by the same > agencies that oversaw the previous decade's massive buildout of fiber to the > home that was financed by massive multi-billion dollar incentives. > > Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber buildout had > happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that neutrality wouldn't be an issue... > > But then, the Republicans keep saying they are not opposed to health care > reform in principle either... >
Me, I'm reminded of the fact that those on the edge of suburban areas have fewer choices than those in purely rural areas. Some carriers have been formed just to solve the basic telephony access issues of PSTN recently, eg: http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_dont_mad_ilec/ Me? I want to see a ban on replacing copper based networking as part of the outside plant. - Jared http://www.allband.org/
