Refocusing The Network Neutrality Debate
from the thinking-forward dept
Robert Cringely has decided to weigh in on the network neutrality debate, and makes some decent points -- though, is a bit too self-serving in claiming that no one but he is discussing the type of solution he proposes. What he actually did was modify the argument that others were using to make it sound different from his own solution (even though it really isn't), and then complaining that no one is saying what he's saying. The key point, though, is that the arguments for why the broadband providers claim they need to end network neutrality are bogus -- and it's time to call their bluff. The problems they're claiming are all fixable via technology (though, not necessarily the technology from Cringely's friends at Burst.com, which is what he suggests). And, if the telcos really think they're going to go out of business by continuing to offer the internet as is, then let's see it happen. The internet won't die if those companies go out of business, so why should we protect the business models of a few companies who can't see far enough ahead to make their business models work in a space where there's tremendous opportunity?
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
Absolutely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely (are you that stupid)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely
There is already wireless technology that will make this a non requirement. This technology could even make for the merging of cell phone and home phone services. What Bell has to be careful of, if they don't change their business model, is that the government might further deregulate, and instead of getting new sources of revenues, they might loose the sources they already have. What if Google gets into the carrier business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely
for one. "
Well for clarity Global Crossing is still in business. they just reorganized. Second there is tons of backhaul fiber in the ground for sure but that is not FTTH. If it was why wouldnt the bells buy that at pennies on the dollar and accellerate their rollouts?
"There is already wireless technology that will make this a non requirement."
Never deployed on a grand scale although shows some promise.
"This technology could even make for the merging of cell phone and home phone services. "
Fixed Mobile Convergene is more likely to happen becuase of IMS and 3GPP architectures. It is also likely to be limited to the network carriers at first which will force all of us to choose between FMC or potentially cheaper video through Google.
"What Bell has to be careful of, if they don't change their business model, is that the government might further deregulate, and instead of getting new sources of revenues, they might loose the sources they already have"
EXACTLY and that is what the net neutrality debate is about. It is the first strategy play by the bells to figure out how to survive in the services revolution. IMHO those arguing this should be careful what you wish for. A perfect analogy maybe the criminal who past up the first plea bargain only to find out his sentence is a lot stiffer.
What most people dont look at is that the bells data service does not operste in its own silo. The business models for the bells and cable co's is based on revenuse from product bundles, upselling of services, etc... With Google and Apple gettin into the IP TV aggreggation and distibution business this will change the broadband providers models. The more they become relegsted to a dumb pipe the higher broadband fees will go in the US for top QoS.
"What if Google gets into the carrier business?"
Possible but highly unlikely. Look at the customer support burden on these carriers and you'll realize that it is not that easy to support millions of non technical subscribers. Better yet is that this only gets worse as more devices try to interoperate seamlessly across networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their problem not ours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refocusing The Network Neutrality Debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a more interesting note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
It really is as simple as that, folks.
Although it's not a true self-managed competative marketplace, since the government had to step in to enforce network neutrality. But I wonder if the telcos would suffer the same fate without neutrality? Will their web-themed protection racket kill themselves off in favor of competition anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]