[ale] OT: Craig Newmark of Craig's List on Net Neutrality

[Marvin, International Martian of Mystery]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Marvin, International Martian of Mystery wrote:
>   
>> I think all the metaphors being tossed around really just cloud the
>> issue.   What the issue is (from my perspective) is that I'm paying my
>> provider $XX.00 a month for X amount of bandwidth (in my case, around 50
>> bux a month for 6mps downloads)- I'm not paying that money so Comcast
>> can selectively limit my bandwidth when I want to connect to a content
>> provider that didn't pay them off.  I want to be able to use my
>> bandwidth downstream and up, the way I see fit, and that's what I'm
>> paying for- not to connect to whom and what Comcast wants me to connect
>> to. 
>>     
>
> Where do you see that this is not the case?  I haven't seen anything 
> (other than on ALE) that says my "contract" with Comcast will change or 
> be altered.  Where is all this FUD coming from?
>   

I've read several news stories quoting folks from both sides of the
issue- and it seems that Ma Bell & her buddies in the ISP buisness want
to charge content providers to serve up their content faster than those
who don't pay-up.   The only way I can think of for them to do that is
to choke the bandwidth when you connect to non-payola sites.  I could be
wrong.   *shrug*

If it means that I'll connect to Yahoo at 6mps if they don't pay-up, and
Google at 8mps if they do pay, I really couldn't care less.  But I just
don't see how that could be the case...