I agree with Mark Del Bianco, Washington, DC, based telecom lawyer and friend of mine, with his premise on Net Neutrality in theory, “if one network is open, competing networks will also be open,” with one caveat.
The caveat is that all things being equal, people will always choose cheap over open. As podcasts and video-on-demand become ubiquitous, the broadband service provider with the best pricing and unlimited pipe (and cessation of bandwidth metering) will win even if the network is proprietary. Via What About Clients? and CNET.
Comments (5)
People value a bargain, I can’t argue with you there. But people also realize that they get what they pay for. If a ‘cheap’ provider is interfering with customers’ usage, I’d bet you a buck that a vast majority would upgrade if it meant a more satisfying experience. ‘Cheap’ by itself isn’t necessarily a good business model.
True. I personally choose Speakeasy.
You’re caveat is true, but do not assume that they cannot come together. If the market is allowed to deal with this issue, and not government regulation, then competition will spur innovation and reduce costs. It’s simple capitalism and it will work.
Exactly. Consumers are protected by the market…cheap isn’t always best and best isn’t always cheap, but the market usually works it out.
Readers of this comment thread should know that Paulaner01, pkp646 and oldhats are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov and AJ Carey. (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 a telco-friendly position — with particular attention and care given to Verizon. (Are they on the payroll?)
What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been a part of sound public policy 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.
What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?