Comments on: Hands Off the Net! http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Glenn http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54354 Glenn Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:20:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54354 <p>As IPTV takes off, and gets presented to the consumers as a Triple Play package, what tax structure will likely follow this? What regulation will dominate its operation?</p> As IPTV takes off, and gets presented to the consumers as a Triple Play package, what tax structure will likely follow this? What regulation will dominate its operation?

]]> By: Glenn http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32480 Glenn Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:20:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32480 <p>As IPTV takes off, and gets presented to the consumers as a Triple Play package, what tax structure will likely follow this? What regulation will dominate its operation?</p> As IPTV takes off, and gets presented to the consumers as a Triple Play package, what tax structure will likely follow this? What regulation will dominate its operation?

]]> By: Raphael http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32479 Raphael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:29:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32479 <p>Sorry - that should be "taxes," not "takes." The point is that this Indiana bill looks like a mixed bag to me: the tax benefits would be an obvious positive, but stripping municipalities of their franchising authority begs the question of whether state governments need to meddle with home rule and local control.</p> Sorry – that should be “taxes,” not “takes.” The point is that this Indiana bill looks like a mixed bag to me: the tax benefits would be an obvious positive, but stripping municipalities of their franchising authority begs the question of whether state governments need to meddle with home rule and local control.

]]> By: Raphael http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54353 Raphael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:29:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54353 <p>Sorry - that should be "taxes," not "takes." The point is that this Indiana bill looks like a mixed bag to me: the tax benefits would be an obvious positive, but stripping municipalities of their franchising authority begs the question of whether state governments need to meddle with home rule and local control.</p> Sorry – that should be “taxes,” not “takes.” The point is that this Indiana bill looks like a mixed bag to me: the tax benefits would be an obvious positive, but stripping municipalities of their franchising authority begs the question of whether state governments need to meddle with home rule and local control.

]]> By: Raphael http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32478 Raphael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:40:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32478 <p>I thought I'd pivot this discussion in another direction. I read this editorial in the Ft Wayne Journal and wanted to throw this out to the forum for discussion. There are some positives and some negatives with this bill -- lower takes, good; government unnecessarily meddling, bad.</p> <p>http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/13583631.htm</p> I thought I’d pivot this discussion in another direction. I read this editorial in the Ft Wayne Journal and wanted to throw this out to the forum for discussion. There are some positives and some negatives with this bill — lower takes, good; government unnecessarily meddling, bad.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/13583631.htm

]]> By: Raphael http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54352 Raphael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:40:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54352 <p>I thought I'd pivot this discussion in another direction. I read this editorial in the Ft Wayne Journal and wanted to throw this out to the forum for discussion. There are some positives and some negatives with this bill -- lower takes, good; government unnecessarily meddling, bad.<br><br><a href="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/13583631.htm">http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/new...</a></p> I thought I’d pivot this discussion in another direction. I read this editorial in the Ft Wayne Journal and wanted to throw this out to the forum for discussion. There are some positives and some negatives with this bill — lower takes, good; government unnecessarily meddling, bad.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/new…

]]> By: RG http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32477 RG Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:50:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32477 <p>There was an interesting read in today's Miami Herald.</p> <p>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13553457.htm</p> <p>From the column:</p> <p>Various existing government requirements on telecommunications providers are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. We need to streamline or otherwise eliminate unnecessary red-tape imposed by state and local governments in deciding whether an otherwise qualified company should be permitted to get into the phone or cable business. ''Mother, may I'' is truly bad policy in this technologically dynamic era.</p> There was an interesting read in today’s Miami Herald.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13553457.htm

From the column:

Various existing government requirements on telecommunications providers are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. We need to streamline or otherwise eliminate unnecessary red-tape imposed by state and local governments in deciding whether an otherwise qualified company should be permitted to get into the phone or cable business. ”Mother, may I” is truly bad policy in this technologically dynamic era.

]]> By: RG http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54351 RG Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:50:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54351 <p>There was an interesting read in today's Miami Herald.<br><br><a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13553457.htm">http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opini...</a><br><br>From the column:<br><br>Various existing government requirements on telecommunications providers are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. We need to streamline or otherwise eliminate unnecessary red-tape imposed by state and local governments in deciding whether an otherwise qualified company should be permitted to get into the phone or cable business. ''Mother, may I'' is truly bad policy in this technologically dynamic era.</p> There was an interesting read in today’s Miami Herald.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opini…

From the column:

Various existing government requirements on telecommunications providers are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. We need to streamline or otherwise eliminate unnecessary red-tape imposed by state and local governments in deciding whether an otherwise qualified company should be permitted to get into the phone or cable business. ”Mother, may I” is truly bad policy in this technologically dynamic era.

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32476 Jim Harper Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:09:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32476 <p>I don't think dominance is a cause for concern. I would like to see some dominance by (let's say) cable. From the moment cable started to reap excess profits (due to bandwidth shaping or whatever else), this would stand as an open invitation to competitors (Bells, satellite, WiMax, whatever provider or technology) to build something even better and go after those dollars.</p> <p> Humans walk by falling forward off the planted foot and catching their fall with the other foot. Markets walk by letting one competitor get ahead and then letting it be overtaken by new investment in new competitors.</p> I don’t think dominance is a cause for concern. I would like to see some dominance by (let’s say) cable. From the moment cable started to reap excess profits (due to bandwidth shaping or whatever else), this would stand as an open invitation to competitors (Bells, satellite, WiMax, whatever provider or technology) to build something even better and go after those dollars.

Humans walk by falling forward off the planted foot and catching their fall with the other foot. Markets walk by letting one competitor get ahead and then letting it be overtaken by new investment in new competitors.

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54350 Jim Harper Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:09:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54350 <p>I don't think dominance is a cause for concern. I would like to see some dominance by (let's say) cable. From the moment cable started to reap excess profits (due to bandwidth shaping or whatever else), this would stand as an open invitation to competitors (Bells, satellite, WiMax, whatever provider or technology) to build something even better and go after those dollars.<br></p> <p><br>Humans walk by falling forward off the planted foot and catching their fall with the other foot. Markets walk by letting one competitor get ahead and then letting it be overtaken by new investment in new competitors.</p> I don’t think dominance is a cause for concern. I would like to see some dominance by (let’s say) cable. From the moment cable started to reap excess profits (due to bandwidth shaping or whatever else), this would stand as an open invitation to competitors (Bells, satellite, WiMax, whatever provider or technology) to build something even better and go after those dollars.


Humans walk by falling forward off the planted foot and catching their fall with the other foot. Markets walk by letting one competitor get ahead and then letting it be overtaken by new investment in new competitors.

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32475 Tim Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:28:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32475 <p>Jack,</p> <p>If one of them were to become dominant, I agree that would be a cause for concern. But right now, things are trending in the opposite direction. The Baby Bells are rolling out new fiber capacity, and there are wireless technologies on the way that might give consumers a third or fourth alternative within the next decade.</p> <p>Moreover, I think that once IPTV really takes off, its advantages over traditional cable will be so enormous that trying to block consumer access to it would be financial suicide. Every jurisdiction will have satellite service for the foreseeable future, and many will have at least a DSL alternative, if not fiber. Those underdogs would have every reason to give their customers unfettered access to IPTV services as a way to differentiate themselves from the cable monopoly. And once consumer realize how much they're missing out on in their cable sandbox, they'll begin to defect unless cable gives them unfettered access as well.</p> <p>Finally, as I've <a href="http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027010.php" rel="nofollow">argued before</a>, blocking some Internet applications while allowing access to others is likely to be much more difficult than net-neutrality advocates seem to assume. Broadband ISPs are already finding this out with VOIP. The Baby Bells have talked a big game about charging consumers extra for VOIP service, but as far as I know, none have had much luck actually blocking VOIP services.</p> Jack,

If one of them were to become dominant, I agree that would be a cause for concern. But right now, things are trending in the opposite direction. The Baby Bells are rolling out new fiber capacity, and there are wireless technologies on the way that might give consumers a third or fourth alternative within the next decade.

Moreover, I think that once IPTV really takes off, its advantages over traditional cable will be so enormous that trying to block consumer access to it would be financial suicide. Every jurisdiction will have satellite service for the foreseeable future, and many will have at least a DSL alternative, if not fiber. Those underdogs would have every reason to give their customers unfettered access to IPTV services as a way to differentiate themselves from the cable monopoly. And once consumer realize how much they’re missing out on in their cable sandbox, they’ll begin to defect unless cable gives them unfettered access as well.

Finally, as I’ve argued before, blocking some Internet applications while allowing access to others is likely to be much more difficult than net-neutrality advocates seem to assume. Broadband ISPs are already finding this out with VOIP. The Baby Bells have talked a big game about charging consumers extra for VOIP service, but as far as I know, none have had much luck actually blocking VOIP services.

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54349 Tim Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:28:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54349 <p>Jack,<br><br>If one of them were to become dominant, I agree that would be a cause for concern. But right now, things are trending in the opposite direction. The Baby Bells are rolling out new fiber capacity, and there are wireless technologies on the way that might give consumers a third or fourth alternative within the next decade.<br><br>Moreover, I think that once IPTV really takes off, its advantages over traditional cable will be so enormous that trying to block consumer access to it would be financial suicide. Every jurisdiction will have satellite service for the foreseeable future, and many will have at least a DSL alternative, if not fiber. Those underdogs would have every reason to give their customers unfettered access to IPTV services as a way to differentiate themselves from the cable monopoly. And once consumer realize how much they're missing out on in their cable sandbox, they'll begin to defect unless cable gives them unfettered access as well.<br><br>Finally, as I've <a href="http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027010.php" rel="nofollow">argued before</a>, blocking some Internet applications while allowing access to others is likely to be much more difficult than net-neutrality advocates seem to assume. Broadband ISPs are already finding this out with VOIP. The Baby Bells have talked a big game about charging consumers extra for VOIP service, but as far as I know, none have had much luck actually blocking VOIP services.</p> Jack,

If one of them were to become dominant, I agree that would be a cause for concern. But right now, things are trending in the opposite direction. The Baby Bells are rolling out new fiber capacity, and there are wireless technologies on the way that might give consumers a third or fourth alternative within the next decade.

Moreover, I think that once IPTV really takes off, its advantages over traditional cable will be so enormous that trying to block consumer access to it would be financial suicide. Every jurisdiction will have satellite service for the foreseeable future, and many will have at least a DSL alternative, if not fiber. Those underdogs would have every reason to give their customers unfettered access to IPTV services as a way to differentiate themselves from the cable monopoly. And once consumer realize how much they’re missing out on in their cable sandbox, they’ll begin to defect unless cable gives them unfettered access as well.

Finally, as I’ve argued before, blocking some Internet applications while allowing access to others is likely to be much more difficult than net-neutrality advocates seem to assume. Broadband ISPs are already finding this out with VOIP. The Baby Bells have talked a big game about charging consumers extra for VOIP service, but as far as I know, none have had much luck actually blocking VOIP services.

]]> By: jack http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32474 jack Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:14:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32474 <p>I'm as against getting the politicos involved in net regulation as the next guy, but I do fear the telcos and their lust for creating new revenue streams at the expense of technology and innovation.</p> <p>Your mention of IPTV evokes one of the most likely of nightmare scenarios: 1) thousands of IPTV channels become available from diverse sources (perhaps some evolved from Google Video, perhaps many 100s of others from independent sources), 2) cable companies see IPTV as a direct threat, 3) cable companies cut out IPTV from their internet offerings through filtering, or force users to pay extra fees to receive these IPTV channels.</p> <p>Nothing like this has happened yet, but why wouldn't it? I would claim that the only real barrier is the presence of mutiple means of receiving broadband (cable, dsl, satellite). If one of these three carriers becomes dominant, why wouldn't they use their position to bolster their existing business models or to maximize profits?</p> I’m as against getting the politicos involved in net regulation as the next guy, but I do fear the telcos and their lust for creating new revenue streams at the expense of technology and innovation.

Your mention of IPTV evokes one of the most likely of nightmare scenarios: 1) thousands of IPTV channels become available from diverse sources (perhaps some evolved from Google Video, perhaps many 100s of others from independent sources), 2) cable companies see IPTV as a direct threat, 3) cable companies cut out IPTV from their internet offerings through filtering, or force users to pay extra fees to receive these IPTV channels.

Nothing like this has happened yet, but why wouldn’t it? I would claim that the only real barrier is the presence of mutiple means of receiving broadband (cable, dsl, satellite). If one of these three carriers becomes dominant, why wouldn’t they use their position to bolster their existing business models or to maximize profits?

]]> By: jack http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54348 jack Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:14:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54348 <p>I'm as against getting the politicos involved in net regulation as the next guy, but I do fear the telcos and their lust for creating new revenue streams at the expense of technology and innovation.<br><br>Your mention of IPTV evokes one of the most likely of nightmare scenarios: 1) thousands of IPTV channels become available from diverse sources (perhaps some evolved from Google Video, perhaps many 100s of others from independent sources), 2) cable companies see IPTV as a direct threat, 3) cable companies cut out IPTV from their internet offerings through filtering, or force users to pay extra fees to receive these IPTV channels.<br><br>Nothing like this has happened yet, but why wouldn't it? I would claim that the only real barrier is the presence of mutiple means of receiving broadband (cable, dsl, satellite). If one of these three carriers becomes dominant, why wouldn't they use their position to bolster their existing business models or to maximize profits?</p> I’m as against getting the politicos involved in net regulation as the next guy, but I do fear the telcos and their lust for creating new revenue streams at the expense of technology and innovation.

Your mention of IPTV evokes one of the most likely of nightmare scenarios: 1) thousands of IPTV channels become available from diverse sources (perhaps some evolved from Google Video, perhaps many 100s of others from independent sources), 2) cable companies see IPTV as a direct threat, 3) cable companies cut out IPTV from their internet offerings through filtering, or force users to pay extra fees to receive these IPTV channels.

Nothing like this has happened yet, but why wouldn’t it? I would claim that the only real barrier is the presence of mutiple means of receiving broadband (cable, dsl, satellite). If one of these three carriers becomes dominant, why wouldn’t they use their position to bolster their existing business models or to maximize profits?

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-32473 Don Marti Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:32:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-32473 <p>It's hard to believe Google is seriously worried about this issue. If carriers threaten to discriminate in customer access to Google, Google could just give AdSense-using sites free use of a Coral-like CDN. That would (1) make it market suicide to throttle Google, and (2) give Google another non-money offering that it can use to fight the advertising price war. The more that Google can pay its AdWords sites in software or services instead of money, the better it does.</p> It’s hard to believe Google is seriously worried about this issue. If carriers threaten to discriminate in customer access to Google, Google could just give AdSense-using sites free use of a Coral-like CDN. That would (1) make it market suicide to throttle Google, and (2) give Google another non-money offering that it can use to fight the advertising price war. The more that Google can pay its AdWords sites in software or services instead of money, the better it does.

]]> By: dmarti http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-54347 dmarti Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:32:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/29/hands-off-the-net/#comment-54347 <p>It's hard to believe Google is seriously worried about this issue. If carriers threaten to discriminate in customer access to Google, Google could just give AdSense-using sites free use of a Coral-like CDN. That would (1) make it market suicide to throttle Google, and (2) give Google another non-money offering that it can use to fight the advertising price war. The more that Google can pay its AdWords sites in software or services instead of money, the better it does.</p> It’s hard to believe Google is seriously worried about this issue. If carriers threaten to discriminate in customer access to Google, Google could just give AdSense-using sites free use of a Coral-like CDN. That would (1) make it market suicide to throttle Google, and (2) give Google another non-money offering that it can use to fight the advertising price war. The more that Google can pay its AdWords sites in software or services instead of money, the better it does.

]]>