Comments
Net Neutrality Court Ruling Won't Ruin The Internet
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2014 | 12:05:49 PM
Re: Not buying it...
Choice is a problem, one that oftentimes has also affected the electric grid as well. 

The issue with the topic of choice (or the illiusion of such) is that there just isn't enough physical space to run separate cabling for every provider. That's why you only have one or two options. The same is true with electrical providers in most areas. 

The big problem that I have is tiering data. Even worse would be the sponsorship of data, creating haves and have-nots. That just doesn't seem right to me for some reason. 
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2014 | 11:44:02 AM
Re: Ah, self-regulating competition as in cable TV market?
@jfeldman, good points all around. Regulation tends to be counterproductive when it is out dated or unbalanced, it is good to look at historic records and the effects of regulation, and to the most part regulation only manages to provide short term security to an economy. Brazil tried to protect its computer industry in the 1980s, the result was that everything relating to computers were behind global standards by at least a decade.

If such rulings are going to create a situation where broadband providers begin to earn abnormal profits then in the long-run a big provider from EU (or anywhere) will also have an incentive to setup shop in the US, along with hard data on the benefits of unbundling.
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2014 | 11:05:44 AM
Re: Consumer's interest
@rradina. Good points about MPLS and creating an SLA to guarantee bandwidth for important data.

On the consumer side, the goal is to provide open, fast and cheap internet access to everyone. If we look at Japan's internet then it can be argued that at least in terms of speed the average US connection is slower. Infrastructure is going to limit the availability of bandwidth. However, new advances in technology and something like SDN might be able to provide more utilization. And it's not just ISP that like consumers to be online -- firms like Google etc also has an interest for people to be online so that services can be provided, banks find it easier and cheaper to provide services online etc. In such an environment, won't it be difficult to massively throttle the internet just because for example, AT&T and Disney have a contract in place?
SaneIT
IW Pick
100%
0%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2014 | 7:37:50 AM
The root of the problem
"The right thing to focus on is encouraging a broadband free market. "

This is why we don't trust Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc to do the right thing with our traffic.  Right now in the majority of the US you have no choice when it comes to a true broadband provider.  You either pay the cable company that has monopolized your area or you try fringe ideas like living off of a cellular provider.  Noting that there is no reason for an ISP not to mess with services like Vonage or Netflix because they compete directly in those markets is caused by their history of eliminating the chance of any competition for the past couple of decades.  
jfeldman
50%
50%
jfeldman,
User Rank: Strategist
1/16/2014 | 6:22:11 AM
Re: Regulatory Capture
You mean we can't go back to FidoNet and UUNet? ;)
jfeldman
50%
50%
jfeldman,
User Rank: Strategist
1/16/2014 | 6:17:36 AM
Re: Calm Down everyone
Hi MyW0rld, thanks.  Sorry I left ya confused... I probably should have mentioned (as I mention in a response to Charlie B) that I differentiate "types" of regulation.  I have seen first hand in government how frustrated a new business can get with the onus of regulation.  That said, I completely agree that the playing field should be leveled in SOME way **TO SUPPORT COMPETITION.** I believe that Net Neutrality is a distraction issue. 

The real issue is the duopoly.  If government wants to jump in and create incentives for competition, awesome!  That doesn't impose a burden on a new business.  If the government wants to jump in and establish "unbundling" like they have in Europe (where middle mile providers are NOT allowed to also be last mile providers), awesome.  If the gov wants to establish a true "commons" backbone (via lease and purchase), I think that's not a bad idea, either (except then we have the NSA issue, right?)  There are actually already many national fiber networks such as National Lamda Rail (http://www.nlr.net/services-map.php).  North Carolina is blessed to have a not-for-profit network called MCNC.  Wireless is also getting pretty hot -- I know of several prosperous wireless ISPs that do quite well in rural and metro.

Point is, I'm all for taking action to prevent duopoly.  I'm just not supportive of us creating the same kind of crazy maze of bureaucracy for IP that we had for telco.  We can choose to take action or to try to regulate.  And the trouble with burdensome regulation is that it applies to EVERYONE, including new entrants into the market.  When I was in business school, I had one classmate who worked for an "incumbent" telco who laughed that they were used to the regulatory maze, but that new entrants were dazed and confused.  I just don't want that for the Internet.  Thanks!
jfeldman
50%
50%
jfeldman,
User Rank: Strategist
1/16/2014 | 5:59:58 AM
Re: Ah, self-regulating competition as in cable TV market?
I'm not totally against regulation, but there are good types of regulation and bad types of regulation.  Bad regulation imposes a burden upon a business.  Good regulation establishes incentives and prevents monopoly.


We already have anti-trust regulations.  If we don't believe that they will be enforced, what makes us think that net neutrality will be?


We also should look to other countries' regulatory solutions to the "monopoly backbone" issue.  Unbundling (the practice of separating middle mile providers from last mile providers) seems to have worked in Europe.  Why not here?
asksqn
50%
50%
asksqn,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 9:33:11 PM
What competition?
The concept of competition is a beautiful theory but the reality is quite the opposite. In any given market, and, assuming broadband is even available, there exists a DSL provider OR a cable provider but very rarely both. Telcos such as Comcast pay big bucks to their pet politicos to keep it that way the better to put the screws to consumers and ensure the US continues to pay the highest rates for the slowest speeds in the developed world. Flashback to the mid 90s when everyone and his momma owned a DUN biz. Now that was competition! As broadband was deployed the carriers paid the appropriate lawmamkers to squeeze out the competition so well that what we will have now as a result of this ruling will be double/triple/quadruple dipping to ensure that Bob's U Betcha Blog is all but the digital equivalent of a ghost town complete with tumbleweeds BC Bob can't afford to pay extra to keep open the increasingly toll roaded pipes the way the corporately consolidated media/big biz can. This ruling is a blow to consumers and will stifle anything that doesn't have the whiff of money and lots of it wafting in the air.
cbabcock
50%
50%
cbabcock,
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2014 | 8:33:27 PM
Ah, self-regulating competition as in cable TV market?
I think it's too much to hope for that Verizon and Comcast would be fair players in a self-regulating market. We have competition, but a minimum of competition, in TV cable service. That's why cable packages are so expensive. Fear of new competition springing up is not much of a restraint to Comcast. I want an active regulatory body supervising, but admit I am not sure who gets to write the rules here. This is a troubling issue.

 
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 5:14:35 PM
Re: Regulatory Capture
Whether or not you like the Republican part or former President Reagan, he said it best when dealing with the Russians:

"Trust, but verify"

Business, whether big or small, is run by people.  People (of course that includes me) are flawed because we will always struggle to see things from other than our own self POV.  From that self POV, we justify all manner of behavior since it seems right.  To think that any entity run by such a creature will not invariably ALWAYS do what's best for it's own good is INCREDIBLY NAIVE.  While regulation will not solve all the problems, it's at least a starting place from which everyone will elevate their game to find loop holes.  Of course we'll have to be dilligent and keep those holes to a minimum.

Bottom line:  Unless there exists ample, stable competitors which we prevent from merging, regulation is the only option we have.
<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>


The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest September 18, 2014
Enterprise social network success starts and ends with integration. Here's how to finally make collaboration click.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.