

Net Neutrality Rules Would Dilute Concept Of Ownership On Internet - DanielBMarkham
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514250

======
decode
A few questions and critiques:

 _This principle of "nondiscrimination" will make illegal any attempt by
broadband and content providers to offer the advanced services consumers want
- prioritized high-definition movies, games, television shows and music._

Does anyone know of consumers demanding that their ISPs prioritize this kind
of content at the cost of others? I've never heard of this actually happening.

 _Rest assured, these FCC principles will radically transform the way business
is done in our information economy, and taken to their logical conclusion
could do extraordinary damage to the information economy itself._

Does anyone know of any companies currently doing anything that would be
restricted by the proposed FCC net neutrality rules? I thought all of the talk
was about preventing future action.

 _Recent criticisms of the FCC's net neutrality proposal by FCC Commissioner
Robert McDowell in this regard are enlightening. "Do you really want five
unelected bureaucrats such as myself - none of whom have an engineering
degree, we're all liberal arts majors - making these types of decisions?" he
asked._

It's funny that this was written by a magazine editor with a history degree.

------
scott_s
_It appears the FCC has managed to redefine the definition of an Internet
Service Provider (ISP), excluding Google from the category and thus also from
its regulations. And so, although Google is in fact the largest ISP in the
world (accounting for 6% of all Internet traffic according to a recent Arbor
Networks study), it can continue with business as usual while Google's
broadband competitors are saddled with heavy new FCC regulations._

The only definition of Internet Service Provider I have ever encountered is
the entity that provides internet access to a customer. I pay an ISP and the
ISP gives me physical access to their network so I can access the internet.
Google is not an ISP by this definition. Google is certainly a huge part of
the internet ecosystem, but they don't provide internet service to customers.

I have to wonder if Forbes purposefully tried to redefine the word, or if
that's truly what he believes ISP means. I can see how Google (and other
entities, like Hulu) might have conflicting desires from ISPs, but that
doesn't make them competitors.

------
philwelch
Ugh. There's a reasonable pro-market way to criticize net neutrality, but this
isn't it. The fact remains that broadband providers are by and large
monopolies, so it enhances rather than restricts the market to force them to
play the role of the common carrier while separate firms focus on selling
content.

Google doesn't even especially stand to profit, nor are they at the most risk.
That would probably be Hulu or Netflix, at the very least.

~~~
shizcakes
Hulu is not at risk. It's a joint venture between the various broadcast
networks, not an independent site, and with Comcast now owning a majority
stake, it's unlikely that they (or any ISP they have a peering agreement with)
would mess with transmissions.[1]

Netflix, on the other hand, is vulnerable - especially since their future
business model seems to be aiming for the on-demand market more than the dvd-
by-mail market. And the on-demand market is something that Comcast (and
perhaps other ISP/Cable company hybrids) would have a strong incentive to try
and de-prioritize to help sell their digital cable subscriptions.

[1]Wikipedia: Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal (General Electric), Fox
Entertainment Group (News Corp) and ABC Inc. (The Walt Disney Company)[4],
with funding by Providence Equity Partners, which made a US$100 million equity
investment and holds a 10% stake. ->
<http://www.cable360.net/competition/web/25376.html>

------
DanielBMarkham
Why did I post this? It's a highly-emotional and slanted piece!

I posted it because 1) I never hear the other side of this argument, and 2)
I'm guessing that everybody on the board will oppose the views expressed,
thereby limiting the amount of BS that goes with typical internet-policy
pieces.

I like Forbes as a TV personality, but he's way off-base in this piece. I
can't decide if he's misinformed, purposely slanting the piece for his own
gain (lots of red-meat political phrases in there), or just hasn't heard all
of the arguments.

I'd bet on the third option, but I'm not so sure one way or the other.

~~~
wmf
If you want anti-NN arguments from people who actually know what they're
talking about, look up Richard Bennett or George Ou; they usually don't resort
to strawman arguments.

[http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=180730&...](http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=180730&);
<http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=294>
[http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/what-is-true-
neutralit...](http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/what-is-true-neutrality-
in-the-network/) [http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/test-data-disproves-
fr...](http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/test-data-disproves-free-press-
anti-prioritization-paper/) [http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/debunking-
the-myth-tha...](http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/debunking-the-myth-
that-prioritized-networks-are-harmful/)

