General discussion


Internet Neutrality vs Broadband Reform

By mrinternet ·
The only thing I could think of that was more controversial is Karl Rove and Jack Abramhoff so ...

Let's begin with maybe the biggest argument (short of govt. regulation) -

"most Internet Service Providers do not pay for a connection to the Internet that equals the bandwidth they sell to their users in aggregate. In other words, if 1,000 customers each pay for 1.5 Mb/s bandwidth, the ISP isn?t buying 1.5 Gb/s access to the Internet backbone. Rather, the ISP is buying a fraction of that, figuring that nowhere near everyone is going to connect at the same time"...

If the users' download speeds do NOT slow down to a craw, then there is excess bandwidth available by the ISP.

The marketplace already prevails in that if people are fairly comfortable with their download speeds - then there is adequate bandwidth available. It is true that there is a formula that the ISP's use - I know - I was an Admin for a ISP - but there is a term: over-running your equipment which is where the routers and existing data bandwidth are exceeded by customer demand - and ISPs constantly monitor this to prevent a consumer mutiny to another provider when Internet access ?bottlenecks? with demand out-pacing supply.

Most people I know that use the Internet excessively -have a MAXIMUM speed connection (which they pay more for than standard connection), already through their ISP to compensate for their above average needs of speed and bandwidth (which go by-in-large hand-in-hand),... SO the multi-tier pricing is already in place. ISPs are out to make money through value added services in the classic pyramid Internet business model. Innovation creates more opportunities for value-added revenue.

The current proposal on the table with the Broadband reform bill takes this classic Internet pyramid business model and turns it upside down with the big TELCOs now being the value-added providers and the bandwidth wholesalers - competing directly with their customers... and that has the likes of ANTI-TRUST as they have an unusually unfair advantage being the wholesalers and controllers of bandwidth. Google is already a value added content provider - COMCAST is trying to be one with their already huge customer base, AT&T is also trying to be one offering TV over the Internet. No wonder Google is crazy with the up-ending of the classic Internet business model.

Furthermore - users by in large DO NOT WANT TO VIEW TV on their computers - see latest study here -

A refresher on Laissez Faire (deregulation),

How total deregulation of cable industry benefitted the consumer -

Additionally - most people do not know what Net Neutrality is, as this complex issue has not been portrayed accurately in the media. At best it has been typlified as big greedy Google pulling a fast one with the cloak of goverment intervention/ regulation. It is way, way beyond that - like turning a classic economic Internet Business model UPSIDE down in the truest sense of the term. We can truly discount/eliminate the multi-tier pricing as having any validity in this debate as it is being done already - which is clear for all to see.

The actual S. 2917 Senate Net Neutrality Bill is here -

The net neutrality debate is not really about money - except for possible anti-trust turning the classic Internet model pyramid upside down. Net neutrality is about the TELCOMs that will be totally in the drivers seat controlling everything on the Internet - wholesale bandwidth - hugh customer base they gained unfairly OVERNIGHT through reform which is exactly government intervention to provide instant advantage over fair competition... with the broadband reform bill

- S. 2686: Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 -

Nobody has held back Telcom innovation - thank god for the likes of Google that sharpened everyones' vision to where the internet was going to take us.

If the TELCOMS are true to their word, then there should be no problem conforming to Internet Neutrality - so they should stop lobbying against Net Neutrality legislation. No double standard like creating a legislative inititive and then not funding it - common practice among some "smarter than thou" politicians wanting the headlines. If the consumer would take the time to read the two bills and hear the arguments (without emotion), they will embrace Net Neutrality legislation with open arms. Freedom, NOT free is what Internet Neutrality is all about!

The reason many have insisted on govt. intervention is to lock down reasonable ground rules that will not allow the classic Internet business model pyramid to be turned upside down as the large TELCOMs now propose. How is this - well they are the wholesalers of data bandwidth and they also want to be the value-added providers competing against their customers with an unfair advantage. Value-added services always have greater profit margins, more control over what end-users view and do and greater potential for expanded revenue streams but, at the wholesale level profit margins are somewhat limited as a percentage of total revenue.

Internet Neutrality prevents Anti - Trust and allows the current "freedom" (NOT FREE), Internet standard to prevail. Never has the intent of Net Neutrality challenged profit taking - just unfair profit taking and a completely changed Internet from what we all have learned to enjoy!

Has anyone thought about current trends - people abandoning TV for Internet entertainment? Now the game is to shove TV down your throat with very uncreative advertising while you are on the internet. Is that what we are talking about here? Did you see the study already referenced above?
Does the Internet commonly represent expanding the mind or dumbing down as we have got to know reality TV ??

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

1 total post (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

One interesting aspect of all this, is

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Internet Neutrality vs Br ...

How do they expect the USA legislation to have any effect on the operation of the internet in the rest of the world?

For years the USA corporation that own half the Senate and Congress have been getting laws passed like the DMA etc - then get pissed when they find that they, not only can't they get them enforced outside the USA, but if they apply any of the special provisions in them, they can be charged with crimes in other countries.

They may change the laws and operation in the USA, but how will that affect the international interaction? Maybe, someone should tell the Senate and Congress that the world does NOT end at the USA customs barrier.

Back to Community Forum
1 total post (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums