| I disagree with Lessig Sounds pretty socialist:
"The aim is to maximize wealth for the economy as a whole, and not just for the network owners."
Too bad the government has a better record of stifling growth and innovation, rather than improving it.
My dsl has stayed at $30, but my speeds are now 3 mbps down, which is way up from 768 kbps down before.
Lessig seems to be mixing up last-mile 'competition' with net neutrality. "this debate is not about the regulation of the backbone. This is the debate about the last mile" I thought that the last mile and net neutrality were completely different issues.
More competition at the last mile is not a bad thing if it comes from innovative technology or infrastructure improvements. Pseudo competition by leasing existing infrastrucutre doesn't help anyone. |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | The only reason network neutrality is threatened in the first place is because there is a huge lack of last-mile competition.
In other words, if the last mile were 100% service provider neutral, there would not be a problem.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to hoyleysox
said by hoyleysox:My dsl has stayed at $30, but my speeds are now 3 mbps down, which is way up from 768 kbps down before. But your competing cable company is probably 5mbps and not distance sensitive. Dont forget to add in your phone line and all its associated crap fees. that dsl isnt $30 out the door!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to hoyleysox
said by hoyleysox:Sounds pretty socialist: "The aim is to maximize wealth for the economy as a whole, and not just for the network owners." Uh... No. Socialism doesn't really care about improving the whole economy. Its goal is redistribution of wealth independent of the health of the overall economy.
said by hoyleysox:Too bad the government has a better record of stifling growth and innovation, rather than improving it. Yeah, ain't that the truth. Remind me: how was it that the Internet came about in the first place?
said by hoyleysox:Lessig seems to be mixing up last-mile 'competition' with net neutrality. "this debate is not about the regulation of the backbone. This is the debate about the last mile" I thought that the last mile and net neutrality were completely different issues. The two are interrelated. After all, look around: every day there are fewer and fewer providers. Ultimately, that means that if a provider wants to be preferential, the impact is far greater than it would be in a more competitive landscape. Further, with less competitors in a given market, there's less reason not to "try stuff out" since there's little potential negative impact (because your customers either buy from you or they don't buy).
said by hoyleysox:More competition at the last mile is not a bad thing if it comes from innovative technology or infrastructure improvements. Pseudo competition by leasing existing infrastrucutre doesn't help anyone. Riiight... That's why the few remaining providers all have various and different plans from each other, offering different features and price points.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
