To: axial who wrote (25758 ) 3/8/2008 3:11:13 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Respond to Hi Jim. Agreed. Fred's approach, aside from being an excellent accounting of some not-so-easy-to-take hard facts, is in some other ways special, too, if not also unique. Aside from some things that I and maybe one or two other folks have written here and perhaps a handful of others in the blogsphere (in relative terms, very few), one doesn't often come across arguments that hinge on a return to common carriage. Well, not as much as the obviousness of it would suggest, in any case. I attribute this acceptance of the existence of a middleman whose job it is to prioritize, mediate and judge the worthiness of our message content, and more, while forcing our personal communications to coexist and increasingly stand aside from their own flavors of tellywood and PSTN traffic, to either Stockholm Syndrome or simply because folks don't not know any better. Today the notion of "broadband", in all of its many convoluted & concatenated forms that it's come to assimilate, has been with us for a while now, and those who are now first coming into Internet have no other point of reference than what's being shoved down their throats by the majors. Enjoyed the read, Fred. I followed you throughout, but I think you might lose some folks during your explanation of the 1992 equiv voice usage. Overall your message comes through nicely. "Thanks... the reference to 1992 is sort of inside baseball about the Special Access docket (WC 05-25) that has been open at the FCC since 2005, which itself was a continuation of an earlier proceeding. ... Imagine buying a computer [today] with RAM price-capped at 1992 levels. But it also explains the ridiculous middle mile costs to people who think ISPs should just buy infinite capacity. Life isn't [the egalitarian] ideal."
