Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Cristóbal Palmer" <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com>]

On 7/24/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> For all the ranting and raving against time-warner, their network
> fills my needs very adequately and for a reasonable price.  Would more
> bandwidth be nice? Sure, but who wouldn't say that.  And quite simply,
> we are not all entitled to service that fulfills our every whim.

You lost me here. Who said anything about being entitled? This is
about rational people wanting to have an effect on policy that has
direct consequences in their lives. But let's look at TWC, now that
you mention it:

(1) TWC is my only option for something that resembles "broadband"
(2) TWC is not providing me true broadband (I get about 5M down, 512K
up even though I'm paying the extra $10 for 8M/1M)
(3) TWC routinely has problems that cause me to lose connectivity.
(4) TWC is owned by a company that has an interest in what comes across my 
wire.

did I mention TWC is my only option? How is having one for-profit
option better than having one city-run option? Before anyone suggests
Bellsouth (my other "option"), let me point out that you should google
for "cozy duopoly".

Are you really trying to say "let the market decide?" Because if
that's what you're saying, then you're essentially saying "Let the big
companies screw individuals and small businesses over, consequently
driving even more innovation and business overseas.

--
Cristóbal M. Palmer
celebrating 15 years of sunsite/metalab/ibiblio:
http://tinyurl.com/2o8hj4