brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | FCC leave them alone
Just let the merger happen no problems asked. |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
 ·Cox HSI
| My comment from the Morning Broadband Bytes thread:
Net neutrality should only apply in non-competitive markets.
I'd rather see cable, telco and wireless compete instead of having the government telling them what service they can and cannot offer. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| said by Topmounter  :Net neutrality should only apply in non-competitive markets. Because there are so many more 'competitive' markets than essentially non-compete? Choice of broadband in the US usually means you have it or you don't. True competition in alot of markets is usually a smokescreen, with every party involved clouding the data.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with what service can be offered. It is about the ability to prioritize traffic at the expensive of everything else. And no matter what spin the telecom giants want to put on it, it's always bad for the consumer and competition. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to brianiscool
Why, so the consumer can get raped some more? |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Topmounter
What exactly is a 'competitive' market? Is that a market where the FCC has determined the zip code (even if it's only 1 house) has broadband, when 99.99% of the people can't get it? Is that the market where you can get raped by comcast, or you can get raped by verizon? Does a competitive market include satellite, with 100MB download caps, and 1000ms latency? Is the dial-up market 'competitive'?
Net Neutrality has NOTHING TO DO with competition. Net Neutrality forces the companies to provide US (the customer) with what we are paying for. If I'm buying an 'internet connection', I expect it to work as the entire internet does, BEST EFFORT. If my provider can't provide me with the latency, or bandwidth I want, then I change providers. What my provider CANNOT do, is create a '2-tier' internet, where some web sites are served faster than others. What my provider CANNOT do is throttle my bittorrent traffic. If my provider sells me 10MB/1MB, I expect to be able to use that pipe in any manner I SEE FIT. That is what net neutrality is all about.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by karlmarx : If I'm buying an 'internet connection', I expect it to work as the entire internet does, BEST EFFORT. So you want your IPTV to be best effort, or do you just think IPTV should be banned? |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
·Cox HSI
| reply to bi0tech
If the government mandates that all broadband be some bureaucratic definition of what he or she considers to be suitably vanilla, then where is the incentive for new players to enter the market? How do competitors differentiate themselves from the incumbent? What if I want to pay to have certain traffic prioritized higher? Why shouldn't I be able to subscribe to service tailored to my usage habits?
I know you think "Net Neutrality" sounds like a good idea, but we need less government regulation and more competition, not the opposite. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| said by Topmounter :If the government mandates that all broadband be some bureaucratic definition of what he or she considers to be suitably vanilla, then where is the incentive for new players to enter the market? How do competitors differentiate themselves from the incumbent? What if I want to pay to have certain traffic prioritized higher? Why shouldn't I be able to subscribe to service tailored to my usage habits? I know you think "Net Neutrality" sounds like a good idea, but we need less government regulation and more competition, not the opposite. You seem to take the concept of any regulation to mean cookie cutter service by all. This is purely rediculous in an environment as diverse in geography and methodology. Variations in reliability, speed, support, and innumerable other packin's and the ever popular bundling services are more than enough to differentiate a product from another. That entire concept is irrelevant to neutrality.
Why you seem to think that forcing yourself into control by a local incumbant, based on prioritized packet handling shows either a complete misunderstand of how networks currently work or a some rather masochistic tendencies. Consider that once you open this box there are no real limitations on what they can do with controlling what traffic you can send and receive, to whom, at what speed. You want to be able to pay more for prioritized traffic? Ok but you don't even make that choice, they do. They choose what partners to make the enhancements for. If you want another provider for that solution then you will only receive the negative end of this as network saturation impedes the traffic which would normally have an equal chance.
Sorry broadband in today's society is not a luxury, it's a utility. Regulation of some kind, however lightly, is really a no brainer.
I've yet to see any cogent explanations of why net neutrality must be abandoned (yes, the net started this way from the original concept). It all seems to come down to capitalists and salesmen drooling over how to deliver the same thing in a new package for twice the cost. |
|
