Broadband Politics - Latest Comments in Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

Re: Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

d.l. — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:56:02 -0000

>If on the other hand, its left up to the businesses to pay for these services, then as a consumer I have no rights when it comes to which services I use.

I guess this means that you think that the newspaper business has been systematically depriving us of our rights since the first day they accepted an advertisement. Or Google for that matter, which doesn't get a penny in revenue from its end users. That's some analysis.

Re: Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

max — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:46:16 -0000

Case in point is Cox Commuications current blocking of Craigslist. I love CL, its a great bulletin board that allows me access to a liquid market for goods and services, but Cox has identified CL as spam and refuses to allow their customers to access the site. Some have argued its because they have a competing classified service, but why should CL be penalized just because Cox decided to get into the classified markets.

That's really funny, as Craig (of Craig's list) take on the facts actually contradict yours.

Re: Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

Richard Bennett — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:11:17 -0000

Cox never blocked Craig's List, moron. Cox gives away a firewall from Authentium software that had a bug which Craig's List activated by advertising a 0-size TCP Window. The bug was fixed in February.

Re: Hyperbolic neutrality nonsense

Davis Freeberg — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:36:01 -0000

I don't think that any is saying that the telcos shouldn't be allowed to charge more for faster service, the question is whether they should be charging the customer or a business. If you charge the customer then the free market is allowed to work because if consumers don't need the faster speeds, then they simply don't pay for them and they miss out on the delivery of HD-VOD or high speed services. If on the other hand, it's left up to the businesses to pay for these services, then as a consumer I have no rights when it comes to which services I use.

[Editor's note: the following is a lie; Cox Communications has never blocked Craig's List.] Case in point is Cox Commuication's current blocking of Craigslist. I love CL, it's a great bulletin board that allows me access to a liquid market for goods and services, but Cox has identified CL as spam and refuses to allow their customers to access the site. Some have argued it's because they have a competing classified service, but why should CL be penalized just because Cox decided to get into the classified markets.

Now if we had an open market, I wouldn't begrude Cox from using these tactics, but Cox and the other telcos have a government mandated monopoly that gives them the power to offer and restrict internet and cable TV access in the markets they serve. Considering that there are very few telcos that even compete in a dual market, this is an important issue. We can either let the companies with the biggest checks get the best service online or we can empower consumers to take control of their own internet uses. If I wanted to trapped inside a walled garden, I would just be using AOL.