3 ms·

Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jock

by IBM 12y ago

Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but it isn't something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent. No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense. As for Google, they're staying out of this fight not just because they could benefit from sponsored data, but also because they seem intent on getting into the ISP business themselves. They recently added a new executive in charge of "Access and Energy"[0]. This could be their first real business outside of advertising. I think it's befitting that a company, that is essentially a utility on the net, is getting into another utility-like business. [0] https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/ https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/

nostrademons 12y ago
The problem is that companies don't suck up the operating expense. They pass it along to consumers. Most Internet companies have enough competitive leverage that they'll just raise prices or show my ads - tech is winner-take-all, so it's not like consumers have a lot of choices. And those industries that don't have this leverage (like Internet radio or podcasting) will simply cease to exist, which is also bad for consumers.
pfraze 12y ago
The public would prefer to have the most possible value out of their internet service. While charging content-hosts extra for bandwidth can increase the quality of those services, it risks degrading the breadth of content, the ease of small-business- and user-publishing, and the level of competition in the content- and data-service market. It's a trade of dubious value for consumers and for data services.

by IBM 12y ago

nostrademons 12y ago

The problem is that companies don't suck up the operating expense. They pass it along to consumers. Most Internet companies have enough competitive leverage that they'll just raise prices or show my ads - tech is winner-take-all, so it's not like consumers have a lot of choices. And those industries that don't have this leverage (like Internet radio or podcasting) will simply cease to exist, which is also bad for consumers.

pfraze 12y ago

The public would prefer to have the most possible value out of their internet service. While charging content-hosts extra for bandwidth can increase the quality of those services, it risks degrading the breadth of content, the ease of small-business- and user-publishing, and the level of competition in the content- and data-service market. It's a trade of dubious value for consumers and for data services.