> Here's the deal. I'm not so much a fan of legislation because something potentially COULD be used for evil instead of niceness. I'd rather let it pan out and then legislate it out of existence IF it turns out to be a terrible thing.

My problem here is that the telcos laid all their fiber with a lot of government subsidies (look at the special regulatory fees you pay each month on a telephone and cable bill) under the guise they were providing consumers with Net access. Now that they've got that market, they want to charge Internet companies for priority access to the network the public has subsidized.

The telecommunications network is a weird beast that is the result of a somewhat failed marriage between the public and private sector. There is still pseudo regulation in a lot of their businesses (for instance cable franchises are exclusive and granted by local jurisdictions) and so long as the public supports them I want them to make the case to me why we should allow this.

This is not a free market that we're talking about. I cannot start up a competitor to Cox in my area since they have the franchise. I can't even necessarily start up a new phone company because I can't dig trenches or put up poles in the public right-of-way without government's OK.

So I ask, what benefit do end users get out of a tiered Net? I don't see what I get from Google paying Cox extra to give the traffic between me and Google higher priority.

We have invested a lot of public money in the network infrastructure because we recognize the Internet is a useful thing, just as we once recognized universal telephone access or highways as useful public goods. If the telcos want to completely alter the rules of the road, they should compensate us.

Stephen