Shopping is normally good for the economy, but not when the shoppers are net neutrality advocates looking for friendly deals on a regulatory forum. Policy makers in Michigan, their current target, should tell pro-regulatory activists to go home, with good reason. Those who support net neutrality legislation frame themselves as proponents of the Net, but in reality their recommendations would have an anti-Internet effect. The worry is that network providers like AT&T or Comcast will start charging some Web sites more than others.
Sonia - this is a complete load of hokum. The issue is not the "bogged-down" Internet, it's that a handful of companies would control FTTH (last-mile fiber to the home). Without protections for net neutrality, the two remaining telcos could conceivably block, filter, degrade or otherwise interfere with traffic by application providers. Had the telcos been able to violate net neutrality, there would be no YouTube, no Skype, no Vonage, no Google, etc. Remember, those concepts (video, telephony, yellow pages) are the telcos' turf. Rest assured those services (and the incredible diversity of the Internet) would have been suppressed. Long story short: you should provide some evidence of your assertions. I can easily provide true stories from the past, marketing literature from hardware vendors, and related collateral that clearly demonstrate the telcos' intent is to turn the Internet into cable TV. And if you think that's a good idea, I want a cup of what you're drinking. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/05/enforcing-net-neutrality-with-two-by.html
Loading ...
Net Neutrality Shopping Is Bad for the Economy
Posted by: Sonia Arrison December 8, 2006 04:00 AMShopping is normally good for the economy, but not when the shoppers are net neutrality advocates looking for friendly deals on a regulatory forum. Policy makers in Michigan, their current target, should tell pro-regulatory activists to go home, with good reason. Those who support net neutrality legislation frame themselves as proponents of the Net, but in reality their recommendations would have an anti-Internet effect. The worry is that network providers like AT&T or Comcast will start charging some Web sites more than others.
The issue is not the "bogged-down" Internet, it's that a handful of companies would control FTTH (last-mile fiber to the home).
Without protections for net neutrality, the two remaining telcos could conceivably block, filter, degrade or otherwise interfere with traffic by application providers.
Had the telcos been able to violate net neutrality, there would be no YouTube, no Skype, no Vonage, no Google, etc. Remember, those concepts (video, telephony, yellow pages) are the telcos' turf. Rest assured those services (and the incredible diversity of the Internet) would have been suppressed.
Long story short: you should provide some evidence of your assertions. I can easily provide true stories from the past, marketing literature from hardware vendors, and related collateral that clearly demonstrate the telcos' intent is to turn the Internet into cable TV.
And if you think that's a good idea, I want a cup of what you're drinking.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/05/enforcing-net-neutrality-with-two-by.html