Scott Cleland, chairman of net neutrality forum NETcompetition.org, believes moves to extend internet regulation in the US will stifle future web video innovation and hence urged the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to promote free-market policies. Cleland believes that the future demands on internet capacity from applications including online video and gaming will require a robust, higher-capacity internet that will only develop if the government allows the free market to continue to spur investment and innovation.
"The internet is the greatest deregulation success of all time. As a result of free-market competition, broadband speeds, capacities and functionalities have increased dramatically and broadband companies have incentives to invest heavily to enable internet video. Pre-emptive and unwarranted restrictive regulation, like 'net neutrality', would destroy current market investment incentives to keep the internet dynamic, fast and productive. Members of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should remember that the free market has made the internet what it is today and that internet policy should promote investment rather than discourage it," said Cleland.
News source: vnunet
"The internet is the greatest deregulation success of all time. As a result of free-market competition, broadband speeds, capacities and functionalities have increased dramatically and broadband companies have incentives to invest heavily to enable internet video. Pre-emptive and unwarranted restrictive regulation, like 'net neutrality', would destroy current market investment incentives to keep the internet dynamic, fast and productive. Members of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should remember that the free market has made the internet what it is today and that internet policy should promote investment rather than discourage it," said Cleland.
News source: vnunet
'Net Neutrality' will prevent ISP from packet - shaping traffic and restricting consumer use of the bandwidth for VPN etc.
Looks like this is a measure sponsored by ISPs under the guise of 'Net Competion'
That's what I thought.
This might sound 1984ish, but it already happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
This might sound 1984ish, but it already happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
But Net Neutrality has been the standard since the internet was created. So far the internet has been a success with this policy in place.
I agree
ive been thinking... what if some of the isps do their bandwidth throttling , and people get sick of it, and out comes a new isp which doesnt throttle the bandwidth and everyone signs onto it, and the bandwidth-throttling isps start losing customers and money to this new isp...
or does it simply not work like that?
ive been thinking... what if some of the isps do their bandwidth throttling , and people get sick of it, and out comes a new isp which doesnt throttle the bandwidth and everyone signs onto it, and the bandwidth-throttling isps start losing customers and money to this new isp...
or does it simply not work like that?
It SHOULD work like that. But this is the perfect example of how massive corporations can keep other companies out. After all, most only have the choice of two or three different Internet/TV providers. Sometimes only one! If the market is not competitive enough, these companies can keep others out.
In point of fact, most companies can currently purchase whatever bandwidth they need. However, this may not always be the case. So if bandwidth gets tight, the opponents of Net Neutrality, the so-called "Net Competition" advocates, want ISPs to be allowed to effectively take away bandwidth that you've paid for and sell it to the highest bidder: them! Net Neutrality would prevent that by forcing ISPs to be neutral: you get the bandwidth you've paid for, no matter who you are!
The thing is, the US can not afford to lose its edge in internet technology. It has already screwed up its car industry because of stupid oil policies in the past. So whatever policy they are planning to make in the Congress, it better be a good one.
Please shape me ISP, I don't need no stinking access to Google!
2. There's regulations imposed by companies that tell customers what to do (i. e. no servers, bandwidth caps, etc.)
Network neutrality is a type 1 regulation; it tends to limit their own ability for making type 2 regulations, so they hate it.
IMO they fear network neutrality because it prevents them from using technical measures that make it easier to oversell their network.
If you promise everyone huge amounts of bandwidth, but throttle back many bandwidth-intensive tasks, you can run more users on the same amount of capacity.
well im just beginning to get used to it, or maybe i have already for a long time... my housemates keep on using file sharing and stuff and Tiscali put us on the slow bandwidth thing, and theyre perfectly allowed to because it says so in the contract
ISP<->User throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality it's about overselling and how to make sure the network operates at a reasonable level for all users.
While I want un-shaped traffic, it's a necessary evil - I just hope more ISPs actually implement smart shaping not just download x amount and have your speed halved.
incentives? like the incentive to slow down your internet connection?
regulate a creative medium? That would be silly, say.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.