Comments on: Is Net Neutrality Down for the Count?

By: Which Types of Businesses Will Be Affected by Net Neutrality (And How) « Meetu Singhal's Blog Site

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:24:05 +0000

[...] and outgoing data the same. Proponents of net neutrality fear that without it, we would get, as Copyblogger‘s Brian Clark puts it, “a tiered Internet, where those who pay (beyond basic hosting [...]

By: marti garaughty

marti garaughty — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:25:09 +0000

Great post Brian, definitely food for thought.

I just saw something about this recently on PBS, hosted by Bill Moyers titled “The Net @ Risk”.

They usually re-run these kind of programs or you can check it out online at…

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html

By: Rick Cockrum

Rick Cockrum — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:54:37 +0000

Brian,

My smilie was intended to convey hyperbole. If anything, I lean libertarian. The government gets involved in a lot more than it should.

You say Microsoft isn’t a monopoly because there are viable alternatives. In the geographic area where you live, there is no viable alternative to your local telecom or cable provider. A disruptive technology may replace them, but the advent of disruptive technologies can’t be predicted.

Network providers already charge providers based on bandwidth, and users based on bandwidth. They collect coming in and going out. You want more bandwidth, you pay more. Given the increase in network speed to date, I think time will take care of the problems of VOIP and video.

By: Brian Yamabe

Brian Yamabe — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:14:21 +0000

I assuming by the smileys that you are kidding, but for conspiracy theorists and those with socialistic tendencies, I’ll explain. First, there are no “natural monopolies”. Unless the government steps in, there is always, always, the option of another company with a competing or disruptive technology. The airlines and oil companies, as a whole, are monopolies because of the regulations that surround their industries. Microsoft is not a monopoly, contrary to popular belief. They have a very large sway on the industry, but people have viable alternatives. In the 90s they were assumed to be a monopoly and if the government had regulated the OS industry they really would have become one because regulation not only restrict the intended target, they create a barrier to entry because new entrants must be able to satisfy said regulations.

Obviously AT&T exists in name only. It’s not anywhere near what the company was pre-breakup. As for monopolies that stay on the books forever, I’d like one named.

By: Rick Cockrum

Rick Cockrum — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:52:14 +0000

That’s the beauty of monopolies from the business standpoint. They can’t be competed away, so they stay on the books forever.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:33:49 +0000

Then why does AT&T simply refuse to go away?

By: Brian Yamabe

Brian Yamabe — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:23:01 +0000

You’re right that a companies only goal is to maximize profits, because if that wasn’t the goal, they’d go out of business. The part of the equation that is missing is that there is competition unless government regulates it out of existence. Bad companies go away. Bad laws stay on the books forever.

By: Rick Cockrum

Rick Cockrum — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:08:52 +0000

The government has to pretend they’re on the public’s side sometimes. A monopoly doesn’t. Their one and only goal is to maximize profits. They’re a parasite that keeps the host alive just enough to keep feeding.

By: HandsOff

HandsOff — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:48:46 +0000

We at the Hands Off coalition agree with Char’s assertion that the net should remain a regulation and government-free zone. Placing the future of the Internet into the hands of Congress will undoubtedly result in one of the most cumbersome and drawn-out legal debacles in modern history and would drop the Net into a mire of legalese from which it might never recover. As tech guru George Gilder recently noted, “‘[N]et neutrality’ is a concept at once so vague and demanding that its penumbra could be litigated in fifty states and up-and-down the federal court system until all our Internet traffic has to be diverted through Seoul and Beijing merely to avoid lawyer spam. By any name, ‘net neutrality’ means price controls on some of the most complex many-sided markets in all industry…” Let’s keep the Internet truly free by saying no to preemptive regulation and unnecessary intervention.

By: Char

Char — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:40:10 +0000

Well, I was just at Liz’s site getting caught up and read her latest NetNeutrality segment. Then I go to check in on my next blog in my favorites – yours, and I get your perspective on the topic. I found that amusing.

The Net really needs to remain a regulation and government-free zone.