Click Here to Read More on Computer World Article
Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia
Well, the battle for Network Neutrality rages on. Are we shocked that all these “delivery-based” companies are desirous of killing Net Neutrality? We should not be.
When you read the rhetoric, keep in mind that their “mom and apple pie” does not seem to include the support of “Content Destination” companies. Nor did I see support from companies that make their living on content / applications and being an internet destination (versus an internet delivery company). Some of these companies obviously absent from this support letter are Google, Amazon, etc. Also absent from this side of the debate are consumer advocacy groups.
They do not seem to be included on this side of the argument, possibly because this set of companies (internet delivery) is interested on optimizing profits and lowering operating expenses at the expense of free and open internet access and usage. This is something that consumers and “internet destination” companies are most interested in and why they were not included in the letter to congress.
Public policy should encourage more investment to expand access to the Internet, whether it is access through a cell phone, a laptop, a PC or any new device that we have yet to imagine," the letter said. "If the FCC takes a prescriptive approach to new regulations, then it could place itself in the position of being the final arbiter of what products and services will be allowed on the Internet."
This excerpt above from the letter is mis-leading, as Network Neutrality attempts to prevent the ISPs from “being the final arbiter of what products and services will be allowed on the Internet”
When the government picks winners and losers in the marketplace, the incentive to invest disappears,"
These excerpts from the letter seem to indicate a belief that the Government is intending to stifle innovation. To be fair, I would agree that each delivery company can likely accelerate innovation, but at the expense of free and open access for consumers? What is wrong with a little balance?
The proponents of killing Network Neutrality are profit driven at the expense of open access. ISPs benefit from many local monopolies, meaning consumers don’t have a lot of local choices for broadband access. I do not know the real answer, only that Network Neutrality seems to be a fair playing field.
As stated by Watto: "I'm a Toydarian! Mind tricks don't work on me - only money!"
Comments