Actually... successful farmers do need to keep up with the latest and greatest and evaluate cost/benefit of those advances. I really hate that people think that farmers are idiots. The ones that are, went out of business years ago.

Maybe you should have read to the end of the article. Just saying. To quote: "If Comcast’s last-mile of cable connection was available to all competitors under the same terms that gave dial-up service providers access to all copper telephone networks back in the 1990s, we would have more ISPs in more geographical areas. "

Fast lanes allow the little guy to have more bandwidth! Less congestion on large backbones is good for everyone. I think the article is exactly right. People have an idea in their head on how the Internet works, but it is not practical or real. Even the little guy can select a colo for a reasonable cost based on the peering of the colo. The is no reason for every little startup to have peering because they just don't have the demand yet. Their transit bandwidth and costs are fine for the time. When they get larger, they could use 3rd party CDN's, then their own CDN, etc, etc.

VoD over coax was using other channels than the channels used for Internet. The thing is, video is not a profitable for cable companies anymore. People have a lot of choices where to get their content. People are cutting cords and therefore can't take advantage of the cable companies VoD service. Cable companies are loosing their vertical integration, not increasing it.

Actually, he was advocating the opposite. He was saying if you want to fix the issue of cable companies abusing peering, create *more* competition. This happens at the local level, not at the FCC level.

Exactly my point. Peering is an important feature of the Internet. I really hate how "unfair shaping" has turned into "peering is bad".

Corruption is another subject. But it is much easier to deal with that on the local level also. It is a bit hard because many people don't pay attention to local politics.

:) I agree.

My main point was that the stuff is everywhere. A person can setup a license-free 5.8Ghz dish without a license. So the point about "inexpertly pointed" can already happen.

Why are you assuming it was the cable company that didn't want to upgrade the links? Cogent had just as much incentive not to upgrade the links because they survive on settlement free peering. Upgrading the links would have possibly put them outside of the peering agreement. In fact, it was reported that it did! It was a much better idea for Netflix to handle the peering agreements directly. They are big enough now, they can do that. It only helps everyone's connection. It is a good thing.

BTW, cable companies aren't making money in video anymore. They have been squeezed between "cord cutters" and content providers loosing eyeballs. Cable companies *are* making money on the Internet. Especially metro Ethernet for businesses. They already have most of the right-of-ways they need. They have the crews to build out connections to buildings. I really don't think the cable companies care about Netflix other than it will increase the demand for bandwidth, which they sell.

Ummm. That *is* peering. Peering doesn't have to happen settlement-free at the Tier-1 level. Yahoo! peered with ISP's way back in the day so they could more efficiently send their content to ISP's. It was "free" because neither side used their transit connections. The traffic certainly wasn't balanced enough to be called a "settlement-free peer".

Did I say I didn't want *any* oversight? I'm not an anarchist. I just want it easier. End exclusive franchises. Open things up. This has to happen at the local level. So, yes, let the *local* voters decide.

BTW, many people already have microwave transmitters in their house. It's called a cell phone. Also, WiFi is microwave. The FCC allows license free use of some frequencies. For all you know, you may already have a dish pointed at your house.

How does common carrier fix this? In the old days, if I was an alternative long distance provider, say MCI (they paved the way for others), wouldn't I have to make sure that I had enough capacity at the local exchange? The local exchange would "peer" with me. I can't imaging the local exchanges forcing all the long distance traffic to the various companies out of a *single* port on their switch.

Let's put it another way. Say I had this brand new idea for a phone service (the industry term is "audiotext"). I decided I want MCI to handle my calls instead of Ma Bell. So I setup with MCI. Suddenly everyone likes my service. The only problem is that MCI doesn't have the capacity that MaBell has at some of the more popular localities. MCI's switch just isn't as big as MaBell's and the link to the metro switch is saturated. Do I stick with MCI and pay MaBell? Or do I make my own links to those popular metro areas?

This is not common carrier stuff. What this fast lane law is proposing is something completely new.

That what is means to you. Net Neutrality in the beginning only meant that all packets were treated the same. Peering *does* treat all packets the same. Peering is a good thing so that ONE large provider of content can't spike out the connection for *everyone*. How is that helpful?

Think about my example with long distance companies. Even *with* common carrier it was up to the individual long distance companies to accommodate the required capacity at the local exchange. The entire long distance traffic for a CO didn't come out of a single port on the switch. MCI in the early days built out their own alternative path for calls using microwave towers. Phone companies had to pay other telcos to connect calls at the local level. Sound familiar? Isn't that what Netflix is doing?

What you are proposing is not common carrier, but something brand new.

Good. I don't want the local government running broadband. I want actual, real, competition. I want the right-of-ways to be loosened. I want less paperwork, less cost, less red tape. I want local governments to make it easier for companies like Google to come in and build out infrastructure. Or heck, just the local guy wanting to setup a microwave tower on his farm and then run fiber to all the nearby farms. That's the way make things better. Not government owned broadband.

What does common carrier have to do with peering? Even long distance companies of old had to connect to the local exchanges. The local exchanges had only so much capacity on their switches. It would be possible that a call couldn't go over a particular long distance router because the switch was full "all circuits are busy, please try again." This is no different than Internet peering except that Internet peering doesn't have discrete channels for each "call".