dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
251
share rss forum feed


dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

What about...

While I agree with the sentiment I'm not so sure about the aggregate effects of mitigating factors. From my read it seems ISPs who are open about what they are doing AND give the end user a choice may be able to get away with more than the overarching intent.

What if I offered an Email-only service where you would only have access to sending and receiving email..no web..etc at a significantly reduced price. Would this be allowed?

What if I offered a series of bad choices for access plans including a very detailed list of protocols that would be allowed with each plan. I also offered open Internet but the cost for it would be more than most people would be willing to pay.

Since I am open about what I am doing and I am giving the user a choice how much freedom do I have to define anti-competitive plans in these circumstances just as long as I use a large point font and give the customer lots of check boxes?

If I had a choice between neutrality laws and the government doing something meaningful about opening up the last mile rather than seeing cable monopolies win by default I would chose addressing last mile.

No amount of regulation will protect and improve access to the network more than presence of real competition.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

said by dslcreature:

What if I offered an Email-only service where you would only have access to sending and receiving email..no web..etc at a significantly reduced price. Would this be allowed?

....

No amount of regulation will protect and improve access to the network more than presence of real competition.

A smorgasbord of choices wouldn't be bad. (I wouldn't mind metered billing either.). But, the real problem is as you noted: lack of competition. Without competition there's no assurance that the buffet or the price per bytes would be customer-driven. No assurance the ISPs capital expenditures, capacity planning, profit margin would be customer driven.

We either need local ISPs to be under public-utility oversight, or municipal ownership of the last mile (allowing ISPs to compete for every household).

Everything else is just addressing the symptoms, not the problem.


56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by amigo_boy:

Everything else is just addressing the symptoms, not the problem.

And there's the rub. None of this is about customer choice or real competition. The regulations are written by the regulated, and while the surface looks shiny and new the implementation is as hollow and cynical as the term "network neutrality" itself has become. Nothing in here stops Comcast (for instance) from blocking Netflix or Amazon VoD as long as Comcast says you can't use them on a Comcast account, upfront at the ordering stage (while pitching their own VoD services instead). How many people do you think will shrug their shoulders, click "place order" and never look back anyway? They could easily put the competition out of business and be completely within this new regulatory framework, and that is precisely what they bought.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon wrote these rules; make no mistake that they already have the mechanisms necessary to get around them.