I LOVE that they all, with one accord object to common carrier status, yet they want all of the protections afforded under that status (just without the responsibilities).
This makes me wonder what our experience with the internet would be if it had been built much like the major US highway system, and was treated more as a public service than a thing to buy and sell.
Also on a side-note, remember the days of startup free dial-up services, that would let you connect for free but would require you use a program that displayed adds?
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
This makes me wonder what our experience with the internet would be if it had been built much like the major US highway system, and was treated more as a public service than a thing to buy and sell.?
Well, the US did know what the Interstate Highway System would be back when it was created and what it would be now. The same thing can't be said for the internet or whatever it was called in its inception.
That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit.
black hawk
"That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit."
What relevance is that to what's discussed in the article? That's akin to arguing the US. has freedom of speach but other countries don't. That's somehow a bad thing?
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
black hawk
What relevance is that to what's discussed in the article? That's akin to arguing the US. has freedom of speach but other countries don't. That's somehow a bad thing?
And while the (excellent BTW) article focuses on US telecom and communications policy, I think how it relates to the rest of the world is very relevant given this medium is one of the major, if not THE primary way a country's people connect with other nations. Probably enough on that subject to write another long article, if not a book, on.
Net neutrality should also prevent selected applications/uses from receiving priority treatment, i.e., VOIP and on-demand video. Is the lag in my gaming less important than my neighbor's viewing of sex and the city reruns?
If internet providers would just provide you with the bandwidth and speed that you're paying for at all times, you could set up your own, house-level quality of service and figure out your own net priority. But God forbid they don't oversell their infrastructure. Gotta maximize those profits and mislead your customers!
Thrax,
thanks for an informative and interesting article. It seems we constantly have to learn and relearn the old lesson that the free market and corporations (whether banks, mining companies, oil companies, or telecoms) often do NOT act in the best interest of the public or their customers. They act in the best interest of their shareholders to maximize profits. On the other hand, even though it is inefficiently bureaucratic, governments do need to step in to regulate certain critical services. Net Neutrality is one where the corporations need to have a governmental regulator's boot on the back of their neck. In my mind and many others, the internet is the modern equivalent of electricity, water, highways, and railroads. I'll take some inefficiency any day over trusting AIG, Massey, BP, or Comcast...
I'm currently outlining an email to Gary Peters complaining that he is an easily bribed man and criticizing his values if 20,000 dollars is all it takes to get him to sell the values of the people he represents.
This article does an excellent job of regurgitating the corporate party line of corporate monopolist Google, which -- like the Bell System of old -- has multiple monopolies on the Internet. (It has monopolies on Internet search, Internet search advertising, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video, and is working on monopolizing mobile advertising via a forthcoming acquisition). Free Press and Public Knowledge, groups which are benefactors of Google, lobby for it in DC. The actual text of the so-called "network neutrality" regulations is not "neutral" at all. Written by Google lobbyists to regulate ISPs and Google's competitors but not Google itself, the regulations would strip ISPs of all control of the future development of the Net, leaving Google in the driver's seat. What's more, they would raise the price of Internet service, deter broadband deployment, harm quality of service, and reduce competition (leaving consumers with fewer choices of ISPs). The many members of Congress who oppose Google's agenda (virtually every member of Congress receives some money from telephone companies regardless of his or her position, so in fact there are no "sellouts" here) are looking out for their constituents by opposing regulation that would shore up Google's monopolies -- which are much more insidious than that of the old Bell System because they are worldwide (not just nationwide). "Network neutrality" regulation is bad for everyone but Google, and we all should oppose it.
0
KwitkoSheriff of Banning (Retired)By the thing near the stuffIcrontian
I think some here is taking they just want to see. I see that DSL was under FCC rules for a long time and because of the taxes and reg's it could not compete. The speeds of the net picked up because those other companies did not fall under the reg's of the FCC. Place all under the reg's will be the starting of taxes on all and hinder the growth of the net.
That's one way to look at it, but I think the current state of the industry disagrees. In the US and Canada, a deregulated market has been patently anti-consumer fraught with reducing bandwidth caps, throttling and other deleterious mechanisms.
A few noteworthy points from the Reddit thread on this:
Isolated to DC area for time being Will probably be appealed to another district Will probably be appealed again to Supreme Court If upheld at Supreme level, it will affect country Findings reversed themselves within 30 pages of one another, stating that there is not enough competition for a fair market to saying that if consumers wanted another option they could use competing services
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Also on a side-note, remember the days of startup free dial-up services, that would let you connect for free but would require you use a program that displayed adds?
Well, the US did know what the Interstate Highway System would be back when it was created and what it would be now. The same thing can't be said for the internet or whatever it was called in its inception.
That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit.
"That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit."
What relevance is that to what's discussed in the article? That's akin to arguing the US. has freedom of speach but other countries don't. That's somehow a bad thing?
It's relevant to what I quoted in my post.
And while the (excellent BTW) article focuses on US telecom and communications policy, I think how it relates to the rest of the world is very relevant given this medium is one of the major, if not THE primary way a country's people connect with other nations. Probably enough on that subject to write another long article, if not a book, on.
thanks for an informative and interesting article. It seems we constantly have to learn and relearn the old lesson that the free market and corporations (whether banks, mining companies, oil companies, or telecoms) often do NOT act in the best interest of the public or their customers. They act in the best interest of their shareholders to maximize profits. On the other hand, even though it is inefficiently bureaucratic, governments do need to step in to regulate certain critical services. Net Neutrality is one where the corporations need to have a governmental regulator's boot on the back of their neck. In my mind and many others, the internet is the modern equivalent of electricity, water, highways, and railroads. I'll take some inefficiency any day over trusting AIG, Massey, BP, or Comcast...
Guess I had a brain fart.
Salute!, Robert!
https://www.goldandbrownstore.co.uk/images/P/old%20speckled%20hen.jpg
They may both be ill-advised, but nobody should restrict or inhibit what I can access.
What examples did they cite to back their decision up? Google Fiber. Which is in 3 markets. Wow.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
Isolated to DC area for time being
Will probably be appealed to another district
Will probably be appealed again to Supreme Court
If upheld at Supreme level, it will affect country
Findings reversed themselves within 30 pages of one another, stating that there is not enough competition for a fair market to saying that if consumers wanted another option they could use competing services