Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Aug 2010 20:55 UTC
Internet & Networking Well, this is interesting. As some rumours already suggested, Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for a legislative framework regarding net neutrality. This being Google and all, some of you may expect this to be all flower-farting unicorns darting across rainbows, but sadly, that's not the case. This proposal? Well, it's not good.
Thread beginning with comment 436129
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

>>My focus is the neutrality of the network far more than who imposes it. The problem with the mega-corporations is that they won't regulate themselves.

Their customers will "regulate" by changing ISP,etc. They just won't buy the product. The customers know more and faster what they want than any government guy does.


>If the did, there would be no discussion of neutrality in the first place. Ideally, the users would impose this or shop elsewhere but the with Internet.. what other global network are they going to migrate too?

They just shop for another access point, not another internet. This happens all of the time. And people that think that these wireless carriers don't have to throttle some of the net just to ease congestion on 3G networks are crazy...there is not enough wireless bandwidth to go around on 3 or 4G in big cities to ensure Net Neutrality.

>>There is a far higher probability of a tiered internet and anti-competitive practices if the corporations are left to govern themselves; as Verizon and Google are demonstrating.

Use another service, don't let the government screw it up.

>>I also don't see the inherent outcome of regulation being the FCC choosing the winner.

FCC is the one that is designated to do the enforcing in the new proposed regulations. Not something to guess about, it what has been advocated by Neutrality Supporters.

>>It doesn't have to be like the radio waves where the digital radio carriers have hosed the public through FCC manipulation.

When did a 3G network become a wired system?

>>Do you complain when the Gov investigates a company like Microsoft for anti-competitive practices against the market? Is it ok for them to regulate the market when real harm can be done to it and the consumer?

There are no real cases of Net Neutrality violations currently. The whole argument is discussing something that has not happened yet.

>>Why can't FCC imposing neutrality have the same out come protecting the market and consumer?

Because there are many un-intended consequences of the government running this thing. People in earlier posts talked about this.

>>The real problem is not the FCC imposing neutrality but the citizenry allowing the corporations to dictate neutrality to the FCC.

You can vote with your wallet immediately, you have to wait 4 years to vote at the polling booth.

>>I can understand that concern along with the fact that your Gov needs a thoroughly cleansing enema replacing professional politicians with people who would do the job for the people.

Even people with the best intensions can make rules that have consequences that they couldn't see.

>>But do you honestly think that the corporations are going to self regulate in anything but the corporate interest?

They are in business to make money, but you don't have to buy...the internet has grown wildly up until now with no regulation...why should we worry about it all of the sudden?

>>They've already demonstrated what direction they want to take it throughout the last decade. Talk about tiered internet goes all the way back to the first civilian broadband installs where Internet 2.0 was supposed to be stinking fast big business, University and rich connections and modem/average speed for everyone who couldn't pay a premium.

The Internet has gotten cheaper, faster and more accessable than ever before...because of people looking to make money by providing access.

>>In anti-trust cases where a monopoly possition can harm the market and consumer, it takes regulating intervention.

There is no anti-trust here.

>>The mega-corps want to turn the internet into an olagarchy (only because no one yet own enough network to make it a monopoly dictatorship), it may very well take regulating intervention.

It hasn't happened yet, and can't because the internet is so unregulated. No one corporation has control over the internet, but the US government wants to have control...kind of reminds me of the China firewall...

>>If your government can't do that in the people's best interest then your problem isn't government regulation but the government itself.

Most governments have stupid rules that cause more problems than they solve. Even the best intensions cause issues. Just leave things alone and enjoy the net in the free form that it's in currently.

>>I think the constitution still allows the people to fix that.. so get on with it.

Not sure what amendement you are talking about here...?

Dano

Edited 2010-08-10 21:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So, when the entire network is split into teirs.. they customer is going to have alternatives? When the Google/Verison framework blocks new entrants into the market, innovation and competition will flurish?

"
Their customers will "regulate" by changing ISP,etc. They just won't buy the product. The customers know more and faster what they want than any government guy does.
"

You must mean that same huge consumer base that purchases products based on quality and technical features rather than marketing and shiny blinkey lights.. for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

Reply Parent Score: 3

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

You must mean that same huge consumer base that purchases products based on quality and technical features rather than marketing and shiny blinkey lights


So you are going to force them to pay--because it will cost more to provide--for something they don't even care about because you know what is best for them?

Reply Parent Score: 1