No Network Neutrality, No Internet... And That's Just What Telcos Want

from the killing-the-internet dept

The network neutrality debate has been heating up as of late, and with hearings today, it's no surprise to be hearing more about it. The always interesting Daniel Berninger has written up a good analysis on Om Malik's site explaining why the internet doesn't exist without network neutrality, while suggesting that's exactly what the telcos want. It's not so much about squeezing more money out of the likes of Google and others, but in killing off what makes the internet useful... which allows them (they think) to go back their older business model which is clearly under attack from the internet. Of course, most people recognize that this will never happen -- but that won't stop the telcos from making a mess of things in the meantime.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Dane Janeiro, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 12:58pm

    No Subject Given

    The telco philosophy is echoed in that line from the guy from the Bush White House who said "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." It's the SAME mindset. They are the same sociopath loop job types that gain power in this country.
    Of course from the reality-based world, it looks like the telco guy are saying that settlement with content providers -- on top of charging customers monthly access fees -- is a business plan for the future. To me it looks like Prodigy, circa 1986.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    bits, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 1:35pm

    Well . . .

    Think about this for a moment. The telcos are the ones touting this idea. There are alternatives to DSL . . . cable providers, there are also programs like direct PC (expensive, but an option), and then "enhanced" dialup, that provide internet access. So if the telcos want to restrict access to their network and therfore reduce the overall usefullness, then why would the consumer use their service? I think that network neutrality will eventually work iteslf out among those providers who are serius about making money.

    If the consumers don't use the service, then the telcos will either be forced to change their ways or phase out their broadband service. Either way, they would be loosing business/revenue. (Granted that they control a significatn portion of the internet backbone . . . which is "the middle" of the internet if you will).

    If I were Mr. Moneybags, and I was loosing revenue because we are blocking access/degrading service, then I would choose to open up the services. . . that's just my thought.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Scott, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 1:41pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    Cite your source for that quote, please. It sounds like more fiction from the so-called "reality-based" land of Michael Moore, et. al.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Jeff Carlton, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Well . . .

    You are missing the whole point of the telcos argument. They are not talking about the connections to their customers. They are talking about the back-bone connections between telcos. Without those connections, cable providers, and the programs you mentioned cease to function. Currently, we enjoy a situation where each telco connects to each other without regard to the data passing through the routers. In a non-neutral model, the telco would charge the content provider for the bandwidth utilized. This charge would come after any access fees that have been paid by the provider to their ISP and the end user has paid has paid to theirs. A double-dipping effect if you will. Very, very greedy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Jeff Carlton, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 1:55pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

    - an senior White House aide
    (as quoted by Ron Suskind in the New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 1:58pm

    Google About to Deliver the Death Blow to Telcos?

    Google seems to be up to something...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Dosquatch, Feb 7th, 2006 @ 3:23pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    OMFG, this was actually printed in the NYTimes. Granted, not my favorite source, and Suskind doesn't bother to attach a name to that "senior advisor". Still, though, it's there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2006 @ 5:30am

    Re: No Subject Given

    and its not like the New York times hasn't been busted for making up and plagiarizing whole stories before. Let alone making up a quote that can't be attributed to anyone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Name Withheld, Mar 3rd, 2006 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Well . . .

    There's another alternative, which I use: connect to the internet via the dozens of unsecured wireless routers in my densely populated part of town. I get a nice fast connection, with entertainment content provided via BitTorrent. It's a lovely alternative that hasn't cost a penny since my investment in a wireless card and antenna 20 months ago. Let's see, at about 35 bucks a month the DSL would cost me, that pays for my Athlon 64 dual-core right there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Brad Eleven, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: No Subject Given

    It doesn't matter whether any Bush official--or anyone at all, for that matter--actually said these words. This is what it looks like they're doing. If you think the words have more cred because they can be traced back to a specific individual, you'd prefer not to think for yourself. It's obvious. Think of Microsoft refusing to cooperate with existing standards, and simply inventing their own standards b/c of their market share.

    Legally defensible and morally reprehensible.

    OTOH, if you discredit the words because you don't like the NYTimes, or because they can't be traced to someone specific (that you could also dislike/discredit), you think only for yourself. That is, you don't have room to consider other perspectives.

    Neither position is "wrong". Both have (IMHO) unacceptable trade-offs, though. Your Mileage May Vary, Based On Your Usage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.