Comments
Net Neutrality: Regulation Makes Evil Empire Giggle
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
RobPreston
100%
0%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
1/17/2014 | 1:54:28 PM
Antitrust
Although I agree with the thrust of Jonathan's argument, it COULD be argued that the antirust authorities were too hands off when they let SBC consolidate much of the telco market and then buy AT&T. That said, the cable companies emerged as natural competitors in local markets, and with continued technology innovation, let's see if satellite and wireless (and power?) companies as well will give the telco/cable duopolies a run for their money.
anon8151121903
50%
50%
anon8151121903,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 2:12:32 PM
Re: Antitrust
The problem with Jonathan's argument is when is the last time competition has ever lowered prices when it comes to the communications industries?  More competition doesn't necessarily mean lower prices.
RobPreston
100%
0%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
1/17/2014 | 2:27:28 PM
Re: Antitrust
When has competition in the communication industry lowered prices? We're all paying much lower prices for local, long distance and international telephone service because of competition. From MCI and Sprint in the old days to Vonage, Skype and MagicJack today--competition almost always lowers prices. My Cablevision cable TV, local phone and Internet access bill would be much higher if Verizon FIOS wasn't in the wings.
daryel
100%
0%
daryel,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 2:29:18 PM
Splitting does not mean competition
The author has confused "compeition" and the splitting of the Ma-Bells.  Splitting the Ma-Bell did nothing to allow any competition.  After the split, 99%+ of consumers still had one choice to get their teleservices from. Southwest Bell never competed with Pacific Bell, and so on.  The split never promoted ANY competition.  Just like most cable subsribers are limited to a handful of options for high speed internet, having limited options only drives the prices higher.

 
JustWorld
IW Pick
100%
0%
JustWorld,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 2:35:16 PM
Net neutrality
The need to prioritize trafic does not exclude the need to provide net neutrality. Net neutrality does not mean that there is no prioritization of network traffic. It is about WHAT can be prioritized or what can't. If my trafic for Netflix streaming was slowed down, while traffic for Comcast pay per view, for example would be allowed full throttle, just because I am on comcast internet end, I would be very upset. I imagine lots of people would be very upset. This is what I DO want FCC to regulate and not allow this to ever happen.
anon0349970690
100%
0%
anon0349970690,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 2:39:32 PM
Re: Antitrust
Tell me how this will encourage any form of competition?

Cable - In my area we have 1 cable company, and they will not allow any others in the area. And that is Cable One, and the only way im sure that will change is if someone like Comcast buys them out. And this will still leave us with only 1 option.

DSL - On the other end of that the only other internet option we have is AT&T which has absolutly terrible service in our area.

So we are stuck with Cable One in our area which has a terribly over priced service that has extreme packet loss and constant drops from the network. 

Leased -Now if I was a business I could pay out for an extremely expenssive leased line from another carrier, which is not affordable.

SAT -Satelite is not even an option with the increased Ping times that the technology creates.

Cell- still not viable or cost effective for a daily internet user/ gamer

There will not be any new competition, the only viable options are DSL/ Cable for broadband and in most areas only 1 of the services are acceptable. They do not have to compete they have monopolies on the area they supply the service to.
RobPreston
100%
0%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
1/17/2014 | 2:48:55 PM
Re: Splitting does not mean competition
The author does NOT say the splitting of Ma Bell created competition, though it did create competition for telecom long distance and equipment manufacturing. The author says that the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act created local competition, but that the upstart CLECs choked on the regulations put in place at that time while the established ILECs brushed those regulations off.
J.w.S852
100%
0%
J.w.S852,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 3:00:21 PM
Wrong problem
The author is confusing or conflating traffic prioritization with traffic discrimination. ISPs will prioritize not in order to facilitate traffic rationalization for efficiency but for exploitation and monetization. The two, prioritization and monetized discrimination, are two distinct motives with different results. Perhaps there is a better way to acheive net neutrality than regulation but not the way the author is suggesting which does not address the real problem at hand.
anon7766509461
100%
0%
anon7766509461,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 3:00:30 PM
Regulation and Competition
I believe it's mistaken to assume that lack of regulation = competition.  That's true in perfect markets.

What we're talking about with telcos is natural monopoly.   They're not evil.   The telco delivery infrastructure, in thise case, just has natural properties that discourage competition. E.g. high barriers to entry after the first 1-2 market entrants.    How many people have more than 2-3 broadband options?  That's not a perfect market.   Giving them additional power over content just adds to their market power. 

Defining net neutrality gives consumers a lever over that market power.  

Dogmatically assuming that regulation reduces competition may be true in Econ 10 Widget World.   However reality often astounds theory.  
milliamp
100%
0%
milliamp,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/17/2014 | 3:03:48 PM
Re: Net neutrality
The problem is this is not easy to regulate. You say "Net neutrality does not mean that there is no prioritization of network traffic" but the example you give of something that should be outlawed is prioritization of network traffic. 

Its harder than you think to outlaw the bad practices without harming the ones that aren't. QoS is in use on most major networks and being used in ways that are not mailicious but how do you outlaw bad traffic prioritization without outlawing good traffic prioritization?

Everyone working on a network would need a team of technology trained lawyers rubber stamping every change they make. What could possibly go wrong? 

Run into a problem and have to take quick action to mitigate impact? Nope, its pending approval from legal. Could take 4-6 months to fix something that should take minutes. 

Maybe the government will install a bunch of nodes to intercept and monitor traffic on ISP networks to ensure compliance with NN laws and ahem, promise not to let the NSA use data from them.

The government is the orginization you should trust the absolute least with making sure you are getting good return for your dollar.
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


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 - July 22, 2014
Sophisticated attacks demand real-time risk management and continuous monitoring. Here's how federal agencies are meeting that challenge.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
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.