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.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
- an senior White House aide
(as quoted by Ron Suskind in the New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well . . .
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google About to Deliver the Death Blow to Telcos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]