Net Noise

by on June 20, 2007 · 4 comments

The FCC’s call for comments on net neutrality ended on Friday and, as Wired News reports, over 11,000 individuals had something to say on the issue. As much as I like the idea of people getting involved in politics, the NN issue has brought out the sad, herd-like, mentality of a lot of people who simply want to vent against what they see as “the fabulously wealthy and the corporate world” (see Wired piece).

Net neutrality is a non-issue that became a big issue BECAUSE some fabulously wealthy corporations (think Google and Ebay here) wanted everyone to get into a tizzy so they had better bargaining chips for broadband prices for themselves. Indeed, the nature of the net neutrality debate was recently revealed when a bill to establish net neutrality principles was defeated in Maine. After the defeat, supporters of net neutrality claimed a victory simply because the legislature agreed to a non-binding resolution to study the issue. Claiming success when the reality is actually defeat smacks of the kind of tactics corrupt dictatorships resort to in their last days. Perhaps this is a sign that the net neutrality militia is about to go belly-up.

  • John Walls

    While I’m not as certain the end of the net neutrality debate is in sight, I completely agree with your take on the evolution of the topic. It boils down to a number of extremely profitable companies, such as Google and EBay, continuing to portray themselves as the ‘little guys’ in hopes that the government will regulate the Internet and let them make even more money at consumers’ expense. If we want the Internet to take “the next step”, someone has to pay for it, and the Googles and Ebays of the world don’t care who it is, as long as it’s not them. There’s already considerable market pressure and competition, so why should the government mess around with what’s working really, really well.

  • John Walls

    While I’m not as certain the end of the net neutrality debate is in sight, I completely agree with your take on the evolution of the topic. It boils down to a number of extremely profitable companies, such as Google and EBay, continuing to portray themselves as the ‘little guys’ in hopes that the government will regulate the Internet and let them make even more money at consumers’ expense. If we want the Internet to take “the next step”, someone has to pay for it, and the Googles and Ebays of the world don’t care who it is, as long as it’s not them. There’s already considerable market pressure and competition, so why should the government mess around with what’s working really, really well.

  • Chris

    I agree, service providers continually evaluate capital outlays for network upgrade cycles and the revenue potential that will result from them with current or innovative business models. Governmental interference in this process will only result in a less useful internet. IMO, FCC 05-151 is enough, the regulators have already set the direction.

  • Chris

    I agree, service providers continually evaluate capital outlays for network upgrade cycles and the revenue potential that will result from them with current or innovative business models. Governmental interference in this process will only result in a less useful internet. IMO, FCC 05-151 is enough, the regulators have already set the direction.

Previous post:

Next post: