Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
The FCC recently voted to move forward on a rule-making process that could lead to new government regulations for the Internet. That is what the FCC and some activist groups want, although they claim to be supporting only "neutrality." Even key players seem confused. The Open Internet Coalition says neutrality "is about keeping the hands of several powerful network operators -- AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- off the Internet, preventing them from taking steps to change the basic open nature of the Net that has led to its success."
In my view of the world, equal access and speed of service should be required of every network provider. 'Little guy business' should have exactly the same odds of getting packets sent and received as 'huge business megalith'.
On the 'other hand' network providers have every reason and right to offer users restricted volume service levels at different price points.
The point being that my connection should run at exactly the same speed as every other connection whether I buy the 500kb package or 2Tb package.
I also consider it fair to differentiate between connection types - dial-up, mobile access, cable, FOIS, etc. as long as the rates were tied to the actual costs of providing the connection ONLY.
I don't want to stifle either network growth or application innovations. I simply want a level playing field. My home videos and video blog should be just as fast and smooth as Netflix or UTube.
On the 'other hand' network providers have every reason and right to offer users restricted volume service levels at different price points.
The point being that my connection should run at exactly the same speed as every other connection whether I buy the 500kb package or 2Tb package.
I also consider it fair to differentiate between connection types - dial-up, mobile access, cable, FOIS, etc. as long as the rates were tied to the actual costs of providing the connection ONLY.
I don't want to stifle either network growth or application innovations. I simply want a level playing field. My home videos and video blog should be just as fast and smooth as Netflix or UTube.
The last anti net neutrality article by Sonia was easier to see through.
The reality of why people need net neutrality is fairly simple: An internet provider should NOT regulate which information goes faster or slower when you pay for some bandwidth on the internet. They currently DO it for profit. They say it causes value to you which is convoluted logic. Net neutrality MUST be demanded as profit motives most definitely demand otherwise. Sonia tries more convoluted logic to try to pawn off the idea that the free market will wind up with net neutrality. Not true, the free market will sniff out every packet of info it can and charge you more for any reason it can think of while free flowing and throttling every packet per thier prospective best interest, rather than simply give you the bandwidth you pay for, simply because it pays well. Right now it is big profit for big biz to control your internet traffic rather than sell you unadulterated flow. They get away with as much as they can while trying to convince you it's for your own good. Please don't believe the anti net neutrality people. The companies that want to control your internet usage want to tell you that net neutrality will control you, when in FACT it's the companies that need some regulation to keep from directly controlling your internet usage. It's fairly simple to be informed on this issue. I understand that we must be very careful about how we regulate these companies, just like we are with all other forms of media which are regulated by our government. It is true that all these companies could agree to not overly control the internet access we buy from them, but, this will absolutely never happen for the simple fact that they are mostly all lining up like greedy hungry pigs at the trough to nit pick your internet experience into piece meal nickle and dime charges and self serving throttling. Simple to see why someone like Sonia would be all for letting the pigs run wild as the profits are huge compared to just selling you internet access.
The reality of why people need net neutrality is fairly simple: An internet provider should NOT regulate which information goes faster or slower when you pay for some bandwidth on the internet. They currently DO it for profit. They say it causes value to you which is convoluted logic. Net neutrality MUST be demanded as profit motives most definitely demand otherwise. Sonia tries more convoluted logic to try to pawn off the idea that the free market will wind up with net neutrality. Not true, the free market will sniff out every packet of info it can and charge you more for any reason it can think of while free flowing and throttling every packet per thier prospective best interest, rather than simply give you the bandwidth you pay for, simply because it pays well. Right now it is big profit for big biz to control your internet traffic rather than sell you unadulterated flow. They get away with as much as they can while trying to convince you it's for your own good. Please don't believe the anti net neutrality people. The companies that want to control your internet usage want to tell you that net neutrality will control you, when in FACT it's the companies that need some regulation to keep from directly controlling your internet usage. It's fairly simple to be informed on this issue. I understand that we must be very careful about how we regulate these companies, just like we are with all other forms of media which are regulated by our government. It is true that all these companies could agree to not overly control the internet access we buy from them, but, this will absolutely never happen for the simple fact that they are mostly all lining up like greedy hungry pigs at the trough to nit pick your internet experience into piece meal nickle and dime charges and self serving throttling. Simple to see why someone like Sonia would be all for letting the pigs run wild as the profits are huge compared to just selling you internet access.
We charge extra for "first class" airplane seats near the front of the plane; for overnight delivery of packages; for front row seats at baseball games. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with selling priority delivery of data packets as well. In fact, it is an ENABLING service, because many new services (and new inventions!) are likely to need this sort of special service to work. To prohibit it would be to stifle innovation.
But of course, this is the reason why Google is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby for regulation that would prohibit this sort of service from being sold. Google, a monopolist, doesn't want competitors to innovate, though of course it wants to be able to innovate itself. So, it is pushing for regulation that would apply to ISPs but not to its own company.
Google has a monopoly, but ISPs have aggressive and widespread competition. Competition is sufficient to ensure that consumers can get the best deal possible. So, we must look at regulating or breaking up monopolies such as Google rather than regulating ISPs, who do not need to be regulated at all.
But of course, this is the reason why Google is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby for regulation that would prohibit this sort of service from being sold. Google, a monopolist, doesn't want competitors to innovate, though of course it wants to be able to innovate itself. So, it is pushing for regulation that would apply to ISPs but not to its own company.
Google has a monopoly, but ISPs have aggressive and widespread competition. Competition is sufficient to ensure that consumers can get the best deal possible. So, we must look at regulating or breaking up monopolies such as Google rather than regulating ISPs, who do not need to be regulated at all.
