Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tab Dump: Net Neut? And Finland Says Broadband Legal Right for All

I keep hearing opponents of open-Internet rules on the plate at the FCC referred to as "net neut" policy. (I guess meant to convey "neutering"?) Anyhow, here's a link to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on the proposal for rules, called net neut, and fear of a wireless meltdown because of capacity problems. Agree or disagree? Sound off.

On broadband:
Tech Crunch: Finland says in 2010 every one of its 5.5 million residents will have the right to broadband.

By Cecilia Kang  |  October 14, 2009; 10:36 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cellular South CEO Hu Meena on Net Neutrality
Next: Waxman Scrutinizes Traffic Pumping After Google Voice Inquiry

Comments

Another display of bias on the part of Post reporter Cecilia Kang. To call the rules "open Internet" rules is completely misleading. The Internet is already open, and no provider would dare make it otherwise. The purpose of the rules is to give a advantage to certain large content providers (especially Google) at the expense of Internet service providers and their customers. It would also, effectively, prevent ISPs from being able to add value to the bandwidth they provide or offer "express delivery" services (analogous to UPS Red or Express Mail). Hence, the description of such rules as "neutering" is accurate.

Brett Glass
Owner and Founder, LARIAT
The world's first wireless Internet service provider (WISP)

Posted by: squirma | October 14, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Brett, it does no such thing.

It does prevent ISPs from picking winners and losers among content providers - an idea I find absolutely HORRIFYING and that you in fact specifically advocated.

That is not a neutral Internet - and you just advocated for that sort of non-neutral behavior - which IMHO boils down to allowing ISPs to basically extort money out of content providers - it in a previous post.

That is not like express delivery - it's like the bandits that used to extract money from travelers at bridges.

People who use Google's services already pay for the bandwidth.

Solution - pay for bandwidth. 10% of users use 80% of bandwidth, largely because right now incremental use if free. The result of non-tiered pricing is that 90% of us pay for more than we get.

Charge the heavy users more. That pays for needed expansion, and the people driving the need pay for it - instead of the majority of us paying for other people's Internet habit.

And yes, allowing Netflix to be my only reasonable video on demand provider IS A COST TO ME, a cost in choice and a cost in loss of a free market.

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 16, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company