Clock is Ticking on Net Neutrality!

Comments

3 comments posted

Dear FCC: Everyone wants an

Submitted by Brett Glass (not verified) on January 12, 2010 - 3:53pm. Dear FCC: Everyone wants an “open” Internet, but the regulations are proposing would not make it any more open except to one group: pirates of music and video. The rest of us would suffer from fewer competitive choices, lower quality of service, and more expensive service. Many people who claim to be in favor of the proposed rules haven’t actually read them or don’t understand their implications. The rules would prevent ISPs from improving quality of service by prioritizing things that need priority (such as streaming audio); it would also prevent them from reining in “digital burglary tools” whose primary purpose is piracy. Any musician who fully understands the potential impact of the so-called “network neutrality” rules will advocate AGAINST them, not for them.

But I already HAVE few

Submitted by Casey on January 13, 2010 - 2:44pm.

But I already HAVE few competitive choices, atrocious service and it’s way more expensive than what other countries get for less.

I’ve read the NPRM back-to-front, and I see nothing that would inhibit ISPs from maintaining their networks. They would, however, be prevented from offering favorable treatment to well-heeled players without reinvesting any of that money in buildout, speed or quality of service.

Piracy will not be stopped by eliminating BitTorrent. I think you know this. A functional, legitimate digital music marketplace depends on three things: the ability to innovate novel and compelling services for users, a more realistic model for licensing content to said services, and a fundamental recognition that the rules of scarcity do not apply in an era of abundance. Studies show that consumers expect product on-demand, and are (mostly) willing to pay for it. They just want it instantly, and with a modicum of interoperability. This is the future. Neutrality will help it mature, to the benefit of content creators of all stripes.

Casey, do you want to have

Submitted by Brett Glass (not verified) on January 13, 2010 - 7:38pm.

Casey, do you want to have even fewer choices? Even worse service? If you do, then support “network neutrality” regulation. The regulation will kill off small competitors, leaving you with less choice. And because the regulation would prevent ISPs from throttling bandwidth hogs, your service would degrade. Because you are not an ISP, you may not understand the impact that the proposed regulations would have. I do. And as for advantaging “well heeled” players: remember that the players which are lobbying for the regulations are the big, well heeled ones, like Google and Amazon. Why? Because the regulations would give them a big advantage over their competitors. As for BitTorrent: While it P2P is not the only means of piracy, it was explicitly designed to facilitate piracy and is the most common way that musicians’ work is pirated. Finally, your notion that there’s some hidden “abundance” that ISPs are holding back from users is simply fantasy. Bandwidth is expensive; I pay more than $100 per Mbps per month for the backbone bandwidth for my business. Any regulation that prevents me from recovering that cost will put me and other ISPs OUT of business — and you’ll have far fewer choices.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.