[ NNSquad ] Re: Net Neutrality vs. Illegal Acts

[Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com>]

At 07:43 PM 3/22/2008, Edward Almasy wrote:
 
>This is just plain not true.  P2P is necessary for distributing open  
>source software of any significant size (e.g. Linux distributions),  

No, it's not. Last I heard, FTP and HTTP were perfectly fine ways of
transferring files. And the organizations which create Linux distributions,
whether for-profit or not-for-profit, do not have a right to set up servers
on our network without compensating us for the bandwidth they take from
us.

>P2P is necessary in any  
>situation where it's economically unfeasible for the people producing  
>and distributing the content to pay for a single (non-P2P)  
>distribution point.

In other words, it's "necessary" to take our bandwidth without paying
for it to make up for the fact that your company or organization can't
or won't pay for it? I don't think so. This is the same thing as saying
that if you want a new car but can't afford it, that makes it OK to
steal one.

>I know, Brett, that your response has been something along the lines  
>of that all P2P is doing in this case is transferring the cost of  
>distribution from the software or media creators to the ISP, but as  
>others have pointed out in turn, that's only true if the ISP decides  
>to make it so by undercharging their customers.

In other words, you believe that the companies and organizations that
want to distribute their content without paying their freight have
some right to tax us or our customers? Sorry, no dice. Distributors
of content need to pay for their connections to the backbone. They
have no right to try to fob that cost off on either us or our customers.
And, again, that goes for both for-profit and non-profit enterprises.
Non-profit churches, clubs, schools, etc. have to pay their gas and 
electric bills just like everyone else, and they have to pay their
bandwidth bill too. They're not entitled to take our product for free.

--Brett Glass