Comments on: Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality

By: AT&T Fear-mongering re Intenet Backbone Saturation « Clearing My Head

AT&T Fear-mongering re Intenet Backbone Saturation « Clearing My Head — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:21:50 +0000

[...] the killer bit from my perspective: Analyst Daniel Beringer argued in a 2006 article that network maintenance and upgrade expenditures are a lower priority for [...]

By: Convergence… or down a familiar the rabbit hole? « LWVCT Media Study

Convergence… or down a familiar the rabbit hole? « LWVCT Media Study — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:34:35 +0000

[...] now read the aforementioned Berninger on local laws and Net neutrality in a post titled “Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality” at [...]

By: celexa medication

celexa medication — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:45:40 +0000

celexa 20mg...

cuizuc mjoikao...

By: John S. Quarterman

John S. Quarterman — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:11:54 +0000

And rights of way are often obtained by eminent domain, which the U.S. Supreme Court last year said could be used for private development purposes.

-jsq

By: sagecast

sagecast — Sun, 21 May 2006 12:08:12 +0000

Readers of this comment thread should know that lessgov and pkp646 look to be part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the Internet. Other names who run with this crowd are Paulaner01, John Rice, AJ Carey and oldhats. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works).

By tag-teaming the blogs this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.

I'd like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points across the blogosphere.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid? And by whom?

By: Stevens33

Stevens33 — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:14:18 +0000

I know most of this post is on Net Neutrality, but what caught my attention was the section about cable franchises. I loathe cable franchises. They are terrible for the consumer as they are simple and true monopolies. Franchises only hurt consumers by preventing competition and degrading innovation in quality and content.

By: pkp646

pkp646 — Wed, 17 May 2006 23:52:22 +0000

I hope that I am not the only one who thinks that government involvement in the internet is a bad idea. Who thinks that regulation without direction is a good idea? Regulating the internet would open a huge can of worms.

By: rpk

rpk — Tue, 16 May 2006 03:43:03 +0000

Peanut,

Limiting “pipes” in areas with no competition makes
complete sense.

People will pay what the market will bear and the market
may bear a whole lot more if only those that can afford
to pay premium rates are connected.

I believe there is a point in economics speak called
diminishing returns…

Of course those do not occur until some competition show
up to kill off the “first to market” profits (monopoly
profits), which should, in theory draw competitors.

But we are essentially dealing with social & political
issues as much as business issues in the “telecom”
space. Telecom and internet are looking more and
more the same…a “pipe” to the world.

By: rpk

rpk — Tue, 16 May 2006 03:33:30 +0000

The BOCs’ ISP operation are not common carriers, never
were, never will be (based on the BrandX ruling).

The same arguments that we are making now were
made at the outset of the ATT system…how many
wires do you want running across town that refuse
to connect to each other?

On the other hand, wireless has an opportunity here,
with the exception that the bulk of the wireless spectrum
is owned by the BOCs.

CableCos aren’t a saving grace. Right of Way fees are
simply passed along by municipality (no common carriage
rate averaging requirements here, no siree).

Even our saviours, the VOIP players, pass along “regulatory
fees”, trust the accountants, they will only pass along
the fictitious fees as they determine them.

Now let’s play with Video over the Net. The telco’s
don’t like voice priced for “free”, but they wouldn’t
mind the 25 bucks a month for “voice over ip - best
effort” Get rid of Level 3 and Global in the Recip
Comp space and get rid of Dial Up competitors in
the bargain. Once they can stamp that out, it’s on to
video.

Video…no, it won’t the internet. Why surf the net
and watch on the computer…it needs to be in the
set top where we can click through 87 channels
to find the one non-ad-infested show that is available..
and that will likely be in the last 3 minutes of it.

If we go the internet route for video on demand,
the BOCs have stated their position…you want
delivery…pay for QoS. How many web servers really
have the bandwith to do streaming video without
remote servers or hosted streaming (ahem..cached
web content).

And does anyone believe VOD over the internet will
fly with the Cable Cos?

Or do we all secretly hope that we have two major
dumb pipe providers to the net?

Last I recall, 3 major long distances companies killed
themselves (2 of them always pricing a scant bit below
att).

Wireless as a strategy in a business plan will be a niche.
As long as the wireless spectrum is free, it won’t be viable.
If I recall correctly, big money is fighting small money
when it comes to providing “free” Wireless internet,
particularly airports/airlines.

No competition, free spectrum works. In a dispute, it results
in the same problem as multiple companies stringing wires,
with the benefit that we can’t “see” the mess, but the same
deficiency, useless.

I wish I was as optimistic as many others.

It is however an excellent time to ride the
“web 2.0″ bandwagon and sell out to the Cable
or Telco folks (or one of our favorite big 3 portals).

Yahoo is in Bed?
MSN is in Bed ?
How long until Google jumps in Bed?

Which telco? Or Cable Co?

Reminds me of the old adage…
Democrat, Republican
Same Shit, Different Constitution

Yeesh, Usenet, Gopher and FTP used to be just
fine once Archie and Veronica appeared.

It all seems sorta the same but more clicks, passwords
and ads…!

In the meantime…cheaper internet access ;)

As I look at the Ad below, there is irony…
Verizon DSL 14.95, Vonage 24.95

sigh

Long term … Unsustainable

Am I missing something?

By: Patrick Mullen

Patrick Mullen — Thu, 11 May 2006 13:31:06 +0000

Jesse, I can't imagine limiting the value of those pipes in rural areas would encourage providers to offer service in rural areas.

I say let the providers do what they want, open it up and let the fight begin. Grant national franchises, free up unused wireless, encourage companies to step up to offer rival service.

By: peanut

peanut — Thu, 11 May 2006 10:09:40 +0000

I trust the market far more than I trust legislators who by and large don’t understand the internet as a medium or as an industry. I sure don’t want the college kids working in their garage on the next big thing to be stymied by burdensome and cumbersome regulations…

By: watcher

watcher — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:39:32 +0000

Competition is the key to network neutrality, not regulation. Do I trust ISPs to use their ‘powers’ altruistically? No. But I do expect them to protect their bottom line. The first ISP to worsen the Internet experience will find its customer going to another provider. Instead of handing control of the Internet to a bureaucracy, why not find ways to encourage more competition and let the market protect the net?

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:31:24 +0000

Patrick, how many operators are offering broadband service in those rural areas now? I’ve never heard of a telco being the first to offer broadband in an area. Their pattern has always been to only do so in response to cable. This why they are so far behind the cable companies in penetration despite DSL being a more mature technology than DOCSIS.

By: pkp646

pkp646 — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:46:55 +0000

Until there is a real and serious problem where someone is actually violating or planning on violating net neutrality I must insist that the issue stay far away from Congress.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 10 May 2006 04:26:16 +0000

Not sure about NYC or San Francisco, but where I live, in Los Angeles, I have one realistic choice for landline service: AT&T. There are a few other choices I suppose - three other no-name companies that pay AT&T for access and thus charge what AT&T charges plus their own costs which makes the price at least 50% more expensive while offering less of a service. Is that your idea of “choice”? I can pay to use Vonage or Skype too, but I still have to pay AT&T for the phone line plus pay again for the DSL service so they get me either way. Alternativly, I can subscribe to Time Warner’s broadband cable for about the same price as a phone line plus DSL, but there again I have but one choice. No matter how you slice it, I have one choice… every other option I end up paying around double to have a choice, which isn’t much of a choice at all in my opinion. All because AT&T owns the only phone line that connects to my house. I find it ironic how people try to argue that phone companies are not a monopoly anymore just because now, if you choose, you can move to another city and have a different phone company be the only one that connects to your house. That’s choice? That’s competition?

By: lessgov

lessgov — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:33:46 +0000

I think the issue is not whether we want net neutrality. Ultimately, we can decide that with our pocketbooks. Rather, for me, the question is whether I want government to decide winners and losers in this debate. That is a dangerous precedent to establish for an industry that has thrived primarily without regulatory intervention.