Comments on: Watch out we don't neuter the Net
In the battle over Net neutrality, policy analyst Randolph J. May warns against the imposition of ill-considered neutrality mandates.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Report: Apple event to be held January 26
December 30, 2009 5:38 PM PST
- Just how free will the Nexus One be?
December 30, 2009 4:57 PM PST
- RockYou sued over data breach
December 30, 2009 4:14 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
Go to http://www.savetheinternet.com today. Take action. Don't let the carriers harm America's Internet leadership position (and, by extension, its national security) by falling for this unadulterated manure.
And it will also lead to more expensive prices for everything as those paying the infrastructure guys have to recoup their money. This will drive even more competition off the net and kill many online businesses and kill the infrastructure companies desire to improve thier infrastructure, because the use of the current infrastructure will be severely curtailed.
The other problem I have with this article and with the ideas propagated within it is that everyone is already paying for access. Most of the larger compainies like google, and ISPs, pay money to the telecoms for their t-1 and other leased types of lines to connect their servers to the telecoms network. And all users pay thier ISPs a fee to use the network, these money alone should be incentive alone.
If the Telecoms, cable companies and other vendors don't want to innovate because they feel that they are not getting a full value from their service, there will be companies coming from outside the country that will create that next level of service, for less and these companies will cease being a part of the equation.
The real tragedy of this is that you have greed creating rederick that will just provide cream on top of the telecom's already huge profits. And as long as they can make money by innovating they will, or else they risk loosing the business.
Congress, in the long run wants to have the latest and greatest for the US technology sector, so if the incumbent telecoms do not want to provide services, they will allow foreign competion to come in and take over, or overrule the FCC and BrandX Rulings to force the telecoms to share their current networks as new local companies upgrade services.
The telecoms don't want to see that either, so they have much incentive to innovate regardless of a decision on Net Nuetrality. Please validate this next statement, becuase I am taking it from memeory and I hope I do not have it backward about Net Nuetrality, but Europe, Japan, and South Korea already have continued Net Nuetrality and they all have superior network infrastructure and Internet use than we currently do as well as with Celluer Service.
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
Go to http://www.savetheinternet.com today. Take action. Don't let the carriers harm America's Internet leadership position (and, by extension, its national security) by falling for this unadulterated manure.
And it will also lead to more expensive prices for everything as those paying the infrastructure guys have to recoup their money. This will drive even more competition off the net and kill many online businesses and kill the infrastructure companies desire to improve thier infrastructure, because the use of the current infrastructure will be severely curtailed.
The other problem I have with this article and with the ideas propagated within it is that everyone is already paying for access. Most of the larger compainies like google, and ISPs, pay money to the telecoms for their t-1 and other leased types of lines to connect their servers to the telecoms network. And all users pay thier ISPs a fee to use the network, these money alone should be incentive alone.
If the Telecoms, cable companies and other vendors don't want to innovate because they feel that they are not getting a full value from their service, there will be companies coming from outside the country that will create that next level of service, for less and these companies will cease being a part of the equation.
The real tragedy of this is that you have greed creating rederick that will just provide cream on top of the telecom's already huge profits. And as long as they can make money by innovating they will, or else they risk loosing the business.
Congress, in the long run wants to have the latest and greatest for the US technology sector, so if the incumbent telecoms do not want to provide services, they will allow foreign competion to come in and take over, or overrule the FCC and BrandX Rulings to force the telecoms to share their current networks as new local companies upgrade services.
The telecoms don't want to see that either, so they have much incentive to innovate regardless of a decision on Net Nuetrality. Please validate this next statement, becuase I am taking it from memeory and I hope I do not have it backward about Net Nuetrality, but Europe, Japan, and South Korea already have continued Net Nuetrality and they all have superior network infrastructure and Internet use than we currently do as well as with Celluer Service.
Well, let's see, what's the biggest barrier to pervasive broadband wireless (i.e. broadband competition)? Oh yeah, that's right, the FCC. Rules and regulations have sure helped there.
So we have analog TV, taxi drivers, and military comms hogging up huge swaths of spectrum while anyone trying to do a serious WiFi deployment has to dick around with a grand total of three non-overlapping channels in the 2.4GHz band.
Government is a successful religion. Some people never lose faith in the bureaucrat.
Well, let's see, what's the biggest barrier to pervasive broadband wireless (i.e. broadband competition)? Oh yeah, that's right, the FCC. Rules and regulations have sure helped there.
So we have analog TV, taxi drivers, and military comms hogging up huge swaths of spectrum while anyone trying to do a serious WiFi deployment has to dick around with a grand total of three non-overlapping channels in the 2.4GHz band.
Government is a successful religion. Some people never lose faith in the bureaucrat.
There are a good number instances where an ISP has blocked access to a perfectly legal website or service because it was simply not in it's own best interest.
The claim by ISPs that it would not be "fair" to allow competitor ISPs (startups, etc) to have equal access to these broadband pipes "because they built them and should not have any right to equally use something they do not own" is also an audacious claim (see also the 200 billion dollars of tax money from the government they used to build it all)
Regulation, to a degree, is a good thing. There are federal laws that prohibit monopolizing and unfair business practices, why not extend such laws and regulations on the flow of information?
It *should* be illegal for a Telco or Cable company to restrict or outright block information access at their own discretion. This is unfair business practice, and a method of creating a monopoly in the digital age.
But as it stands such practices are *not* illegal, and any backlash they get is merely from the public. If multi-billion dollar corporations are more willing to break the law because the fines are less than the costs of compliance, what on god's green earth would make a person believe that the public will have an effect directly? (this is in response to the post about balanced market)
There is also the red hot debate about VoIP, Digital Video, and a host of other services. If a company online, let's say YouTube.com is very popular and one day decides to offer movies for a price, without legislation in place, what will stop the Bells and Comcasts from deciding one day to block the competition?
Nothing. And this is the problem we are trying to correct. If somebody figures out a better way to do something than a major corporation, they should be allowed to reach the world via the Internet about it.
Without such regulation, it would be as if Microsoft, hearing about an amazing grass roots Operating System called Linux, decided to all but disconnect users within it's scope from ever seeing the site or downloading it.
Net Neutrality is just that. It sets in motion the regulation in the digital age to prevent monopolies of information traffic that would benefit the bottom line of Larger ISPs.
Without it, completely biased and unfair business practices will get worse. No regulation in this area is the same as giving Telcos and Cable Companies the "all clear" to continue with these actions in full force and with little or no backlash or penalties.
This article itself is rediculous, and I am completely in shock that a "news" site like C|Net would have the audacity to publish it without a moment of full disclosure (aka: this guy's clientel lineup includes Major ISPs, telcos, cable companies... all the companies that would benefit most to see this regulation shot down)
While allowing it to be published is fine, doing so without the disclosure to their audience is both in poor taste and constitutes horrible journalism, not to mention insults the intelligence of it's readers., (and to attempt to justify non disclosure of the background of the writer to the readers is simply immoral).
Telling only half the truth while omitting damaging information is the same as lying.
There are a good number instances where an ISP has blocked access to a perfectly legal website or service because it was simply not in it's own best interest.
The claim by ISPs that it would not be "fair" to allow competitor ISPs (startups, etc) to have equal access to these broadband pipes "because they built them and should not have any right to equally use something they do not own" is also an audacious claim (see also the 200 billion dollars of tax money from the government they used to build it all)
Regulation, to a degree, is a good thing. There are federal laws that prohibit monopolizing and unfair business practices, why not extend such laws and regulations on the flow of information?
It *should* be illegal for a Telco or Cable company to restrict or outright block information access at their own discretion. This is unfair business practice, and a method of creating a monopoly in the digital age.
But as it stands such practices are *not* illegal, and any backlash they get is merely from the public. If multi-billion dollar corporations are more willing to break the law because the fines are less than the costs of compliance, what on god's green earth would make a person believe that the public will have an effect directly? (this is in response to the post about balanced market)
There is also the red hot debate about VoIP, Digital Video, and a host of other services. If a company online, let's say YouTube.com is very popular and one day decides to offer movies for a price, without legislation in place, what will stop the Bells and Comcasts from deciding one day to block the competition?
Nothing. And this is the problem we are trying to correct. If somebody figures out a better way to do something than a major corporation, they should be allowed to reach the world via the Internet about it.
Without such regulation, it would be as if Microsoft, hearing about an amazing grass roots Operating System called Linux, decided to all but disconnect users within it's scope from ever seeing the site or downloading it.
Net Neutrality is just that. It sets in motion the regulation in the digital age to prevent monopolies of information traffic that would benefit the bottom line of Larger ISPs.
Without it, completely biased and unfair business practices will get worse. No regulation in this area is the same as giving Telcos and Cable Companies the "all clear" to continue with these actions in full force and with little or no backlash or penalties.
This article itself is rediculous, and I am completely in shock that a "news" site like C|Net would have the audacity to publish it without a moment of full disclosure (aka: this guy's clientel lineup includes Major ISPs, telcos, cable companies... all the companies that would benefit most to see this regulation shot down)
While allowing it to be published is fine, doing so without the disclosure to their audience is both in poor taste and constitutes horrible journalism, not to mention insults the intelligence of it's readers., (and to attempt to justify non disclosure of the background of the writer to the readers is simply immoral).
Telling only half the truth while omitting damaging information is the same as lying.
The law quoted in the article by Congress is also geared toward that last mile - not the long haul circuits.
The Telcos want to charge companies who will use more bandwidth extra money to use the faster back end pipes - else that data will be dumped onto the "regular" pipes and all consumers will suffer due to overbooking of these pipes - thus creating a "need" to charge for the faster circuits.
However, these back end pipes costs are already factored into the costs of getting connected by consumers to an ISP when they lease a line - and the line the ISP gets to the long haul system.
To allow the Telcos to move the "last mile" premium costs (56K, DSL, Cable or whatever) pricing onto the long haul COMMON CARRIER circuits is creating a faulty business need.
This is like reserving one lane on every interstate just for truckers which pay a premium to use it - even though everyone paid for the road construction.
To continue the example, if the truckers want to build their OWN ROAD exclusive for them to use that is parallel to the interstates fine, then ONLY they should pay for it.
If the Telcos want to build and charge a premium to firms to deliver content faster then just remember that they can NEVER charge people any costs for research, construction, operating, repair, service, research costs from ANYONE OTHER than for firms that want to pay for it.
This means the end CONSUMER gets refunded all the money already spent in building it (since they don't get to use it) and all costs from the lowest washer in the system rack to the switches which are needed to route the data in the future.
Either we all share the benefits of having paid for it, only those who use it have to pay for it, and avoid going Communist: "We all equal -- just that I am more equal than you."
- Last Mile Arguement
- by taphilo June 7, 2006 11:54 AM PDT
- Umm, the FCC regulated THE LAST mile for the Telcos for the level of service - did the FCC dictate that people using touch tone phones could get better service vs analog phones when calling long distance? No.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (70 Comments)The law quoted in the article by Congress is also geared toward that last mile - not the long haul circuits.
The Telcos want to charge companies who will use more bandwidth extra money to use the faster back end pipes - else that data will be dumped onto the "regular" pipes and all consumers will suffer due to overbooking of these pipes - thus creating a "need" to charge for the faster circuits.
However, these back end pipes costs are already factored into the costs of getting connected by consumers to an ISP when they lease a line - and the line the ISP gets to the long haul system.
To allow the Telcos to move the "last mile" premium costs (56K, DSL, Cable or whatever) pricing onto the long haul COMMON CARRIER circuits is creating a faulty business need.
This is like reserving one lane on every interstate just for truckers which pay a premium to use it - even though everyone paid for the road construction.
To continue the example, if the truckers want to build their OWN ROAD exclusive for them to use that is parallel to the interstates fine, then ONLY they should pay for it.
If the Telcos want to build and charge a premium to firms to deliver content faster then just remember that they can NEVER charge people any costs for research, construction, operating, repair, service, research costs from ANYONE OTHER than for firms that want to pay for it.
This means the end CONSUMER gets refunded all the money already spent in building it (since they don't get to use it) and all costs from the lowest washer in the system rack to the switches which are needed to route the data in the future.
Either we all share the benefits of having paid for it, only those who use it have to pay for it, and avoid going Communist: "We all equal -- just that I am more equal than you."