Refocusing The Network Neutrality Debate
from the thinking-forward dept
Robert Cringely has decided to weigh in on the network neutrality debate, and makes some decent points — though, is a bit too self-serving in claiming that no one but he is discussing the type of solution he proposes. What he actually did was modify the argument that others were using to make it sound different from his own solution (even though it really isn’t), and then complaining that no one is saying what he’s saying. The key point, though, is that the arguments for why the broadband providers claim they need to end network neutrality are bogus — and it’s time to call their bluff. The problems they’re claiming are all fixable via technology (though, not necessarily the technology from Cringely’s friends at Burst.com, which is what he suggests). And, if the telcos really think they’re going to go out of business by continuing to offer the internet as is, then let’s see it happen. The internet won’t die if those companies go out of business, so why should we protect the business models of a few companies who can’t see far enough ahead to make their business models work in a space where there’s tremendous opportunity?
Comments on “Refocusing The Network Neutrality Debate”
Absolutely
It’s about time sombody said this out loud.
Re: Absolutely
Hehe, if the Bells decide to spend BILLIONS on upgrading their networks, they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. You guys whine over everything. Nothing is free and no one gets a free ride. Its coming whether you like it or not. My advice is for you to get an account with one of the Bells so you won’t be crawling across our networks at 56k speeds rofl!
Re: Re: Absolutely
The bells have gotten billions from local governments to get right of way and to have monopoly access to people. Now, suddenly they can block everyone out? Don’t think so…
Re: Re: Absolutely (are you that stupid)
bandwith already gets paid for at the datacenter side(when it leaves) and at the customer side(when it is veiwed). whos not paying? telco companies just want more money, i cant blame them for that, but i dont think they will win or should.
Re: Re: Absolutely
I say bring it on. Do you think there is not miles of dark fiber optic in the world. An that some of the companies that laid it went out of business? Global Crossing for one. And that Google and the others do not have the money to buy it up? And that hard hook up to homes is really still needed?
There is already wireless technology that will make this a non requirement. This technology could even make for the merging of cell phone and home phone services. What Bell has to be careful of, if they don’t change their business model, is that the government might further deregulate, and instead of getting new sources of revenues, they might loose the sources they already have. What if Google gets into the carrier business?
Re: Re: Re: Absolutely
“Do you think there is not miles of dark fiber optic in the world. An that some of the companies that laid it went out of business? Global Crossing
for one. “
Well for clarity Global Crossing is still in business. they just reorganized. Second there is tons of backhaul fiber in the ground for sure but that is not FTTH. If it was why wouldnt the bells buy that at pennies on the dollar and accellerate their rollouts?
“There is already wireless technology that will make this a non requirement.”
Never deployed on a grand scale although shows some promise.
“This technology could even make for the merging of cell phone and home phone services. “
Fixed Mobile Convergene is more likely to happen becuase of IMS and 3GPP architectures. It is also likely to be limited to the network carriers at first which will force all of us to choose between FMC or potentially cheaper video through Google.
“What Bell has to be careful of, if they don’t change their business model, is that the government might further deregulate, and instead of getting new sources of revenues, they might loose the sources they already have”
EXACTLY and that is what the net neutrality debate is about. It is the first strategy play by the bells to figure out how to survive in the services revolution. IMHO those arguing this should be careful what you wish for. A perfect analogy maybe the criminal who past up the first plea bargain only to find out his sentence is a lot stiffer.
What most people dont look at is that the bells data service does not operste in its own silo. The business models for the bells and cable co’s is based on revenuse from product bundles, upselling of services, etc… With Google and Apple gettin into the IP TV aggreggation and distibution business this will change the broadband providers models. The more they become relegsted to a dumb pipe the higher broadband fees will go in the US for top QoS.
“What if Google gets into the carrier business?”
Possible but highly unlikely. Look at the customer support burden on these carriers and you’ll realize that it is not that easy to support millions of non technical subscribers. Better yet is that this only gets worse as more devices try to interoperate seamlessly across networks.
No Subject Given
The internet should be free and should be covered by local taxes.
Their problem not ours...
I totally agree on this one legisation is just ridiculous.
Refocusing The Network Neutrality Debate
Adapt or face extinction! The companies that have come out in support of this ridiculous (and laughable) stand, are those that have a problem with adapting to evolving technology.
Re: On a more interesting note...
Vice President Dick Cheney shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets. Odd it was the lawyer being the only guy who most likely knows it all.
No Subject Given
Wonderfully spoken! If the telcos can’t afford to invest in their infrastructure, then they’ll wither and die at the hands of their expanding competition.
It really is as simple as that, folks.
Although it’s not a true self-managed competative marketplace, since the government had to step in to enforce network neutrality. But I wonder if the telcos would suffer the same fate without neutrality? Will their web-themed protection racket kill themselves off in favor of competition anyway?