 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | This may be even more sinister than it appears Why are they misleading about competition? Is it only to continue monopolizing some areas?
In light of yesterday's article, I suspect the pretence of competition will become a pretext for arguments against network neutrality. If there were competition, then theoretically citizens might be able to find a provider that respected neutrality, and ISPs could cite this theoretical possibility in arguments against regulations.
When reading the writeup on yesterday's emissions from these weasels, I interpreted Tauke's remarks as suggesting a censored service option for extra-protective parents and non-technical users concerned about malware and phishing - and an unfiltered option for those who want to be free from interference from the ISP (network neutrality). But I thought he meant that these options would be from the same ISP. That way, if there's a monopoly or duopoly in an area, the neutrality option would remain available.
But in context of the original article, I now think the implication was that in Tauke's preferred world, each ISP would be free to make all its offerings censored/ filtered. Then anyone who wanted raw internet would have to look to the supposed competition. But when sufficient competition exists only in corporate propaganda, a neutral option probably would not exist in most places.
Re-read the quotation in light of this interpretation, and smell the evil.
options that would allow consumers to block data — including parents who want to control what pops up on home computers and people worried about identity theft, he added. . ."Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice." |
