Corporate opponents of this measure include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[85][166][167]
Corporate opponents of this measure include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[85][166][167]
13 comments
Either we stop us and them, or we all die.
We have the .coms like Facebook or Uber that made their money by inserting themselves between an existing process, like journalism or cab driving, and its customers, then extracting a profit from it.
From what I've read, repeal of net neutrality regs will basically allow ISPs to re-insert themselves between the consumer and the .coms, giving the Facebooks of the world a taste of their own medicine.
The question to me is, will the consumer now be double-f'ed, or will the existing quantity of f-ery remain zero-sum to where the megacorps have to reapportion the spoils? I don't know the answer. It's just that it looks more like a battle between megacorps than any kind of great moral crusade to me...
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/332127-oracle-backs-net...
Was also surprised to see Eric Schmidt on that page, though his argument was you should be able to discriminate voice vs video, but not Hulu vs Netflix, which makes some sense if you want to provide lower voice latency, but I think you don't want ISPs to be able to sell you voice and video separately.
Declaring concern about the loss of ISP neutrality is choosing to pretend that the people who control ISPs won’t make rational decisions.
If you ran Comcast, why wouldn’t you make it easier for NBC properties? Why would Comcast behave differently than MSN or AOL did in the dialup days?
The pro-net neutrality folks are motivated by self interest. But keep in mind that there are many of them. Think about why that is — you have a competitive marketplace.
The anti-net neutrality folks are all in positions to extract tolls and “sell shovels” to ISPs.
In my opinion, ISPs have consolidated and enjoy the ability to work in a low/no competition market. They should not be given the privilege of rent-seeking and inflating the cost of services that deliver value to the consumer. They are a utility. If they don’t want to be treated that way, they need to be compelled to allow competitors access to local loops.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cable-...
- net neutrality is a regulation on ISPs that is bad for business
- ISPs will not take advantage of repealing net neutrality
How exactly is repealing it going to help them if they won't change anything?
Too much regulation means lesser competition and eventually in the long run things would deteriorate because it would be really hard to innovate.
Regulation seems like the equivalent of deciding to maintain the status quo, while if Title 2 is not imposed, there is the future possibility to make changes based on what the ISPs end up doing. The examples mentioned in the article illustrate this. I don't know why there is this idea floating around that this is the end of the internet and nothing can be reversed or changed from here-on (In fact I think that would be the case if Title 2 and associated regulations remain )
I'm not saying pro/anti-Net Neutrality is right here, but it seems anti-Net Neutrality works best when actual competition is involved and there is a lot of area in the US where that competition doesn't exist.
I mean, that seems to advocate against government intervention on the internet, but not specifically net neutrality. Also, I'm pretty sure data caps and stuff like that would be squarely against the principle outlined in the declaration.
Am I just being naive?
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
You get a Net Neutrality warning leads me to believe that it's a tiny bit off the mark.
EDIT: I re-read it today, and I think it could be mistaken as anti-NN, but is very much for a free and open internet. In the spirit of the document we'd like to believe we don't need meatspace government to define that, but in a practical sense we absolutely do.
Here are some companies who are "sitting this one out," when they were very actively pro-Net Neutrality 2006-2015. This is quite surprising:
• Facebook
• Google (not too surprising given Eric Schmidt's statement)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/technology/net-neutrality...
(It is noted in that article that Microsoft is pro-Net Neutrality but being fairly quiet about it. At least they have made a statement.)
If a company needs a lot of bandwidth don't they pay mre for it? Why would you charge me for wanting to use youtube? This is my very simplistic understanding of the current state of things.
Why should I have to pay my ISP and theirs for the connection not to suck? They pay transit providers for us, and peer with other networks to facilitate that job. Now they want a bigger slice of the pie.
Imagine having a delivery component to a business. Currently, the company supposedly pays taxes to pay for the roads. Now imagine cities using the plate readers at every major intersection to levy additional tolls for every segment of the road network used by their delivery vehicles.
Now imagine cities granted cheap rights of way for the roads owned by the public to Comcast. And now Comcast is collecting a rent of their own choosing from every delivery truck that drives past a plate reader. And that’s what repealing Net Neutrality will do.
How is this in any of the above names mentioned' interest? I feel I am missing something.
Also, the FCC has a long history of enforcing non-discrimination practices. In the past, a investigation was enough to force ISPs to treat all traffic equally. This worked until Comcast sued the FCC and won[0], forcing the FCC to formerly reclassify broadband providers as common carriers.
Wanting the internet to be the "way it was in the 90s-2010" is a pro net neutrality stance. As broadband providers were de facto common carriers as a result of DSL networks operating over phone lines.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC