 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to SuperWISP
Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em said by SuperWISP:Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? Well, when current ISPs are adding restrictions (like Comcast's caps) and taking away newsgroups (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, et al.), it doesn't seem like ISPs are competing on "value added" products. Looks like more profit for them instead.
said by SuperWISP:And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? Which is? All traffic is treated fairly?
--
My Blog 2.0 |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | If you have an unused bedroom would you like the government to make you rent it out to anyone that showed up at your door and had the money for the room at a price the government set. |
|
| reply to Gbcue
"Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. |
|
|
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by SuperWISP:"Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. Interesting.
--
My Blog 2.0 |
|
