Comments
Net Neutrality Court Ruling Won't Ruin The Internet
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 6   >   >>
anon3801881579
50%
50%
anon3801881579,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:00:56 PM
A Nice But Impractical Idea
Ideally, I agree in principle with the author here that a competitive solution to this problem is preferrable. Unfortunately, and I suspect it is true for the vast majority of rural customers, I have but one broadband ISP available to me at my home. Thus, if I have any slow-down or blocking issues with any given provider, I have no recourse other than to give up my internet access. Futher, let's remember companies find other ways to disincentivize moving from provider to provider. For the foreseeable future, I believe Net Neutrality is a practical must.

 
mediajolt
100%
0%
mediajolt,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:08:04 PM
A naive posting
This article is all about promoting competition to enable better quality service from ISPs. What the writer fails to acknowledge is that in many locations - nay, the majority - there is no real competition. Cable operators have swallowed up local competitors or pushed them out of the market so that there's no real competition in place. Sure, there's the phone company, but unless they update their infrastructure, real speed is still unavailable in most places. And the hope that Google will save us all with fiber is a very long ways off, if even possible at all.

No, these types of non-competitive, monopoly situations are exactly what governmental oversights and regulations are for - because any corporation, if compared to a human being, is a sociopath by behavior, and the government is the doctor prescribing meds and creating boundaries to keep these sociopaths from harming the public at large.

This writer's position is naive and willfully ignorant.
ecory
IW Pick
100%
0%
ecory,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:13:24 PM
Part of the problem..
A big part of what I have a problem with is that AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers have used federal dollars to build out "their" fiber infrastructure. The problem is that it really isn't theirs. It's ours, all of ours. Charge me for access to it, and for the support you provide, but don't try and bill the backbone as something owned and financed by big red or big blue. Sure, they did a majority of it, but not all majority is created equal. It's transmission across this publicly funded infrastructure that I have problems being metered / limited.

"And in general, the Internet is not going to melt down because of a lack of Net neutrality. But choice will be seriously affected if growth in competition doesn't continue. And the best way to kill new entrants into the market would be to significantly increase regulatory burden on Internet providers. Whatever the FCC does in response to the ruling, let's hope that it's not that."

I haven't seen any additional competition pop up in my region of the US since U-Verse came in to play 6 years ago. But what do they offer? A maximum of 6mbps when the cable company offers 100mbps; both metered. The only areas where things have really changed that I can see is where Google Fiber has started.
The Judge
100%
0%
The Judge,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:15:12 PM
Confused author
Mr. Feldman appears to be unaware of one of the primary roles of government, to protect its citizens.  The FCC is a REGULATORY agency; it was not created to foster the economic development of industry, but to regulate the development in a way that protects and benefits the citizenry of this nation.

The idea of regulation of an industry as an evil plot against business permeates our society today, yet it was less than 100 years ago that most people in this country were no better off than the serfs of Russia.  Turn a blind eye to business, and see what happens.  When given the opportunity, they'll sell their souls to the enemy (look at how many circumvented the ban on the sale of steel to Japan in the early-1940's)...
anon2054905372
33%
67%
anon2054905372,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:20:58 PM
Calm Down everyone
  Let me say this about the companies doing this cut down on bandwith. You haven't seen anyone do it yet. When they say this and that to cut it would be a death nail. Think about it with the viral permis we are in. Let it start on Facebook or Google then it is everywhere. They riped me off.People will stay away just because of the words said. That would be a death nail. Let a company be that guy. AT&T would never think of it. 60 percent of the business does this. Let the mobile industry does this well lets go to T-Mobile. They have a cross platform with phone and internet. It would mess with both businesses. They wont do it. Comcast has the AT&T to worry about. They would be the bad guys. It will never happen. I think the writer had it right. 1 customer is 100 or 1000. nothing ever happen in the few.

 

Always follow the money. It is bad bussiness to do this people will find out and the knowledge would be the death nail.

 

Doc
BeckyC031
67%
33%
BeckyC031,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:36:20 PM
Regulatory Capture
What "The Judge" is confused about is that most regulation has been captured by politically well-connected businesses, Regulators are not wise impartial eunchs devoting the totality of their existence to the good of the American public. I am astounded that people can have such faith in the  governemnt's regulation of the Internet when it is the same governemnt which is in the process of destroyijg the Internet with their data strip mining operations.  Please see this article by Electronic Freedom Foundation : The FCC and Regulatory Capture.
Michael Martinez
0%
100%
Michael Martinez,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:48:01 PM
Here's the REAL problem...
"Here's the stated problem: The big carriers (notably Comcast) have already shown that, left to their own devices, they will start picking and choosing which data streams should be fast, slow, or simply blocked."

Sorry.  That dog won't hunt.

The REAL problem is that consumers are being charged for services they DO NOT USE.  Net Neutrality has always been a lie.  It's about increasing the profitability of companies that are too cheap and lazy to pay for the bandwidth they use and pass that cost on to THEIR actual customers.

This court ruling is the first sane government decision to come along since Net Neutrality began wasting people's time with this nonsense.  The high bandwidth users (a minority) that the ISPs throttled in days gone by were ruining the Internet experience for everyone else (a majority).  And now we have to pay for their fun.  Don't whine the next time you pay your Internet access bill.  You're underwriting Google's profitability, Netflix's "cheap" streaming fees, and all the gaming communities' fun.  You should feel generous and content in your generosity.  You deserve to for supporting Net Neutrality.

 
The Judge
100%
0%
The Judge,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:49:44 PM
Re: Calm Down everyone
You're being naive.  This has happened before, and the results will be the same.

Remember when Congress de-regulated cable and radio in the mid-1990's?  How has that turned out?  Now, you have limited choices and steep cable fees, so much so that there are renewed clamorings for cable regulation.  As for radio, only a handful of companies own almost every radio station in this nation.  In the city in which I live, two companies own all eleven FM and three AM stations.  This limits the sources of media information available, and throttles the development of other industry (music, venue development, etc.).

Or how about when rail was de-regulated in the 1960's, and instead of answering consumer calls for increased competition, companies simply closed down passenger lines?

You also operate from the assumption that Americans can simply switch providers.  In reality (and as stated in another post on here), most Americans only have access to one high-speed cable provider in their area.

Stop buying into the corporate propaganda, and ask yourself this:  Why would these major corporations risk millions in legal fees to fight Net Neutrality if they wouldn't gain from it being stricken down?
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 12:51:05 PM
Consumer's interest
Net neutrality is appealing because it is aimed towards creating an environment where all traffic is equal -- torrent or otherwise. However, it is in the interest of consumers that not all traffic be equal. Take for instance a medical procedure that might lead to lower health care costs using technology based video collaboration, in such a situation preferential treatment needs to be given to the data of the video link and there needs to be an economic incentive in place to bring about such a change.
cbrenny
100%
0%
cbrenny,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 12:53:50 PM
Not buying it...
"From the consumer standpoint, let me also assure you that the second that Netflix starts getting messed with by a cable provider, Netflix's software will pop up a message on the consumer's screen that says: "For best service, you may wish to switch to XYZ provider in your area.""

You need to think a bit more critically about the outcome here. What happens when moving to provider XYZ results in restricted/slow access to Hulu and Amazon Prime, or other services that I use? Since a household must pick one internet provider, I suspect the outcome of selection will be "premium" access to a few of the sites/services that each household uses, and then paying an additional add-on fee for premium access to those remaining sites. It seems unlikely that one provider will be a panacea for all of a household's internet access needs, and we will all be paying for upgrades here and there to make up the difference achieve the same internet experience we have today.

I suspect the FCC will in fact classify the internet as a "telecommunications service," because (let's be honest here) internet access if far more essential to our daily lives than speaking on the telephone.
Page 1 / 6   >   >>


The Agile Archive
The Agile Archive
When it comes to managing data, donít look at backup and archiving systems as burdens and cost centers. A well-designed archive can enhance data protection and restores, ease search and e-discovery efforts, and save money by intelligently moving data from expensive primary storage systems.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Elite 100 - 2014
Our InformationWeek Elite 100 issue -- our 26th ranking of technology innovators -- shines a spotlight on businesses that are succeeding because of their digital strategies. We take a close at look at the top five companies in this year's ranking and the eight winners of our Business Innovation awards, and offer 20 great ideas that you can use in your company. We also provide a ranked list of our Elite 100 innovators.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Audio Interviews
Archived Audio Interviews
GE is a leader in combining connected devices and advanced analytics in pursuit of practical goals like less downtime, lower operating costs, and higher throughput. At GIO Power & Water, CIO Jim Fowler is part of the team exploring how to apply these techniques to some of the world's essential infrastructure, from power plants to water treatment systems. Join us, and bring your questions, as we talk about what's ahead.