Dutch Carrier Has Pawn in Lower House, Blocks Net Neutrality
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Jun 2011 22:38 UTC
Internet & Networking Because OSNews is technically a site from the US, and because the technology industry is decidedly a US-centric industry, we often talk about US politics having adverse effects on technology - or, the other way around. That's why I've been detailing the political movements here in The Netherlands with regards to net neutrality. After a lot of positive news, I've now got some bad news - bad news that involves the largest political party trying to block net neutrality - because one of its members of parliament, Afke Schaart, is a former KPN employee. And yes, KPN is the carrier that first announced it was going to block and throttle traffic.
E-mail Print r 7   · Read More · 67 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/j56
Thread beginning with comment 475543
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Do we really need regulation?
by AnyoneEB on Wed 1st Jun 2011 23:41 UTC in reply to "Do we really need regulation?"
AnyoneEB
Member since:
2008-10-26

The argument for regulation here is that there are few enough (mobile) ISPs that simply switching to a better one is not an option because they will all charge extra for VOIP (or whatever other type of traffic).

EDIT: ... and Thom said the same thing while I was writing my comment.

Edited 2011-06-01 23:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Berend de Boer Member since:
2005-10-19

But why are there only a few?

And why won't there be a 4th one very quickly?

Reply Parent Score: 0

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Infrastructure.

All these players in the mobile market (what this is probably mostly about) have their own network.

It would be hard to compete with these players without your own network. And it obviously takes time/money to build your own network.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

But why are there only a few?

Because they were there first and it would be very hard for a new actor to catch up, and because the radio spectrum is a limited resource. Mobile operators own their infrastructure, in pure following of the free market philosophy, and strangely they tend to be shy about sharing it unconditionally with new actors if the government doesn't come into play.

And why won't there be a 4th one very quickly?

Describe us a plan for introducing a full-blown mobile network very quickly.
In France, we're currently trying to introduce a fourth one. It started one year ago, and early service (= only works on big cities, or through another carrier's network) should be available next year if everything goes well.

Before the project was even approved, the existing operators have done every piece of lobbying they can to kill the project. The new actor couldn't afford paying the full price for an equivalent of share of the GSM spectrum to the one which other actors had, as an example. It offered to pay in several chunks. Through intense lobbying and legal manipulation, the proposition has been rejected.

Then the government has suggested that the new actor could only receive on third of its initially planned piece of the GSM spectrum, which would effectively impair its development as soon as it starts to get lots of customers, while historical operators get two thirds of it. Well, it's better than nothing right ? But no. The three historical operators have tried, through more lobbying, to argue that having the new operator pay one third of the price was unfair competition. Thankfully, at this point, European institutions have come and enforced this solution.

Free market doesn't work well with limited resources. It's just a matter of fact.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >