how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Cry Cry Cry quote:
I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing
Oh my, don't we feel important?
Net Neutrality is about keeping the status quo: best effort delivery and all. Double dipping the parties who already pay for access is ludicrous.
quote:
They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own.
This argument gets used here an awful lot. Applied to any other commerce arrangement, it would seem illogical and ill advised at best. I suppose if you don't like WalMart, you should build your own store? That's hardly feasible. Luckily, most other commerce arrangements have other choices in the marketplace-there are competitors to WalMart. Building ones own ISP is hardly a feasible proposition for a majority of people. Possible? Yes, but so is building my own doctor's office, or football stadium, or ocean liner. None of those things are feasible from a cost/skill/time/effort/energy perspective for just about anyone. I don't see how an ISP is any different than those examples. Sure, a one man, one location, two pipes for redundancy ISP is possible, but who amongst the peasants of the world could afford/want to do so, when there are clearly behemoth giants already squatting on that space? Could a one man ISP compete with say Time Warner, pricewise? Absolutely not. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. | |
| Actually now the state PUCs are taking over the ROWs and they get to say who builds and who doesn't. Will that eliminate over-builders, most likely not. But most people won't over build, instead they'd just rather complain about something. | |
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Cry Cry Cry - major error said by Ahrenl:There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. ISPs do not generally build infrastructure. The last time I checked, albeit a year ago at least, earthlink does not have ROWs. Telcos, CableCos, Wireless and SatCos use ROWs.
said by Ahrenl:Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. My only point is that you seem to be confused about what an internet service provider and an infrastructure provider is.
(not that the lines didn't get blurred once the real ISPs were either bankrupted or absorbed into existing regulated entities)
It ain't much different than the wal-mart model. We all complain about local jobs lost, yet we shop there because of low prices, which are caused by labor that is less than local jobs provide.
We sorta killed the ISP industry and handed it to the telcos and cablecos. It reminds me of that original small check we all received from Bush when he was first elected...face it, us americans are whores...
Just food for thought. | |
|
