Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Aug 2010 20:28 UTC
Internet & Networking Lots of talk on net neutrality this week, mostly due to the joint policy proposal from Google and Verzion. While many Americans are calling for government-imposed net neutrality rules, The New York Times' Eric Pfanner proposes a different solution - one that has been working wonders in Europe. And hey, what a coincidence - I'm European!
Thread beginning with comment 436913
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Sun 15th Aug 2010 21:41 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

The article presents some nice idealism, however it is far from practical or reality to think that we can institute competition. The cable companies would fight this tooth and nail, and we would see this strung out in the courts for years. By the time we would have a final decision made, we would all be flying our jetpack cars to Mars and back. Believe me, there is nothing on this world I want more than to see the end of local cable monopolization. 40 years of cable has taught me one thing, and that is holding my breath for competition is akin to waiting for the Vikings to win the Super Bowl, or the U.S. to win the World Cup. May happen, just not in my lifetime.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 15th Aug 2010 21:55 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, if was possible in Europe to force cable companies to open up their network, so why not in the US? Since when companies > government?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by Pro-Competition on Sun 15th Aug 2010 22:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

Since when companies > government?


Unfortunately, the answer is: when companies own the government officials / legislators.

Ultimately it is the public that is to blame. After all, votes are still cast by people, not dollar bills. But the result is very similar, because the public is so gullible.

I'm afraid that we (the USA) are another proof that hyper-affluence (even of the imaginary, borrowed kind) leads to stupidity. It's depressing.

Edited 2010-08-15 22:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by bile on Sun 15th Aug 2010 22:25 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
bile Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, if was possible in Europe to force cable companies to open up their network, so why not in the US? Since when companies > government?


1. The US has different laws regarding business and an aura of private property rights.

2. Because that solution goes further down the road that created the problem in the first place. A lack of respect for private property and corporatism. If you want to fix the problem attack the disease not the symptoms.

3. Companies (businesses) should always be > than government. A business offers products and services voluntarily. Customers deal with those businesses voluntarily. It's a win/win. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. Government intervention changes that. Government forces individuals to do something they otherwise wouldn't have. It's a system where at least one party must lose and therefore create this tug of war between the public and special interests. You let government treat businesses as anything more than an individual or group of individuals you will create a system bound for corruption and abuse. Government at most is supposed to protect individuals and their property. By forcing companies which have already been given unfair advantages through government corruption to open their systems you merely temporarily mend a doomed social ideology. Get rid of the power and you get rid of the power struggle.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by Karitku on Mon 16th Aug 2010 08:06 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Well, if was possible in Europe to force cable companies to open up their network, so why not in the US? Since when companies > government?

Almost all European cable companies are old goverment companies that were granted unfair monopoly. Same goes for postal services, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by wirespot on Mon 16th Aug 2010 14:25 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Well, if was possible in Europe to force cable companies to open up their network, so why not in the US? Since when companies > government?


Have they? Been forced by the government?

Someone wise once said the best thing the rulers could do is to issue as little rules as possible. Because once you put down a rule you have to keep enforcing it, again and again, forever.

I'm not sure what you mean by "open up their network". If you mean requisitioning infrastructure created by the telecom companies with their own money without any compensation, I doubt that has happened.

Beside, I thought the whole idea of this article was to exclude the governments from getting involved, and that a healthy market will automatically solve the neutrality problem by sheer force of competition.

So why are we discussing governements enforcing anything?

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Welcome to the United States. Enjoy your visit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

off topic.

I just had an image of Norse boats landing on the shore and ax wielding, Armour clad marauders storming a stadium filled with the home team and unsuspecting fans.

Reply Parent Score: 2