Friday Poll: What form should Net Neutrality take?

November 14th, 2014 by · 21 Comments

Ok, yesterday’s poll wasn’t terribly seriously composed of course, and was designed to express exasperation in its many forms.  This one is about the actual issue.  After six years of debate, where do you all come down on network neutrality?  


If you haven't already, please take our Reader Survey! Just 3 questions to help us better understand who is reading Telecom Ramblings so we can serve you better!

Categories: Government Regulations · Polls

Join the Discussion!

21 Comments So Far

  • Robert Grutza says:

    Frankly, Obama attaching his name to anything at this point should raise antennae. The failure and corruption his name connotes cannot help any proposal.

    • Anonymous says:

      And now we can add Robert Grutza’s name to the list of meaningless contributions to the otherwise informed dialogue on this site.

      Robert, I’m sure there’s a fox news forum out there where your comment passes as information.

      Net Neutrality is an issue that long pre-dated our current POTUS and will be with us long after he’s out of office.

      • Anonymous says:

        You all have the same reaction…. foxnews/rush/christians/blah blah.

        The fact is the man and his “americans are too stupid to rule themselves” minions have bungled and convoluted everything they touch. health care existed long before POTUS too, but he managed to force his ideological will on us all for that, too.

        People are reacting that if the ideologues are getting involved, we should be worried about what is otherwise a serious topic. I don’t believe a goddamned word that man says, and if you were paying attention and not frothing at the mouth about fox news viewers, you wouldn’t either.

        • Anonn says:

          Yes, all interesting to someone somewhere I’m sure, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rob’s question of “What form should Net Neutrality take?”

          Did you answer high school geometry exam questions with commentary about the Cap’n Crunch you had for breakfast?

          Today, when you take the burger order from your customer, do you follow it up with commentary about the flat tire your cousin had this morning on his way to work?

          Your above comment is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the question Rob poses.

  • Carl M says:

    Given that we can reasonably argue that the Internet’s unimagined growth and success is mostly due to the lack of regulation, proponents of Title II in the form of content providers (Netflix, et al) should be careful what they wish for. Chances are, their very businesses models would likely not exist today if those regulations had been put in place early on (streaming video over dial-up or T-1 – anyone?). It was the relaxing of existing – or lack of – regulations that welcomed the large amounts of capital required to build the networks (that support this delivery of content, that created the competition, that drove down prices, etc., etc., etc…) in the first place. Do we really want to chase that capital away?


      Carl M, I don’t think anyone can say definitively that Title II is the right way to go here.

      The content community has embraced Title II regulation b/c it seems like the only way to ensure that the incumbent ISPs like AT&T, VZ, CMCSA and a few others don’t dismantle the very bedrock on which the internet was built. Net Neutrality principles governed the internet in the 90s long before Tim Wu gave it a name in the early 2000s.

      The internet we enjoy today is not so much a function of great foresight on the part of the incumbent ISPs as much as a function of responding to customer demand.

      Consumers were clamoring for faster connections to display the media rich content the content community was creating. Incumbent ISPs saw a great revenue opportunity and went after it. Instead of competing against one another organically by entering other markets to win new customers, the incumbent ISPs chose the inorganic express path of carving up the market into, at best, a duopoly.

      Anyone on this board who’s ever worked for a CLEC knows what it’s like to have to rely on an ILEC to provide last mile services, especially when you’re competing against them.

      Today the content community competes against these ISPs that have their own content or a cable service that could be dropped in favor of an internet only service like Netflix.

      Now that the incumbent ISPs have squeezed virtually all the fruit so that nearly everyone has high-speed internet access, these ISPs want to squeeze the other end of the pipe (i.e., the content community) for more money. They can only do that because there is insufficient ISP competition.

      • Anonymous says:

        I may have missed this answer along the way but just how are the “fast lane” advocates proposing to ensure CoS/QoS across the heavily peered/transited public Internet?

  • Todd says:

    Net Neutrality, The Answer by Todd Dineen, Both Sides Are Wrong & This is Why.

    There is a paradox and hypocrisy in both sides of this argument and when party politics, uninformed activists and corporate influencers all weigh in on a complex issue that they do not understand the result is bad policy. The idea is to impose regulation to Keep or Stop the Internet from being “Free and Open” which has ironically proliferated solely because of it’s lack of government regulation over the last 20 years. The question is rather or not to force all Internet Service Providers to treat all Internet traffic equally from it’s source to destination, between all of the different networks each IP packet traverses from the origin of it’s content or application server to your eyeballs.
    While this is generally thought of as being aimed at Cable Operators like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications who have been granted monopolies to operate in specific geographic regions and as such should rightfully be subject to government regulation, other types of network operators and the freedom of consumers to choose a service they may want needs to be considered as well. Should they, or should they not have the ability to offer fast lanes to Netflix and YouTube etc. for a fee because in doing so, by default it gives them the ability to not allocate resources to deliver media and applications that load quickly to smaller or upstart companies until they pay additional fees. This limits their ability to compete and become the next Netflix when slower load times are allowed by network operators by speeding up paying Internet traffic in fast lanes and slowing down the rest unless and until they pay extra. The problem that everyone is missing is that a sweeping piece of legislation serves to inhibit other providers the ability to offer their customers service plans they may want.
    We need look at IP traffic from mobile, fixed wireless, DSL and satellite operators differently than Fiber and Coax to the Home. If someone is buying a consumer service with a technological bandwidth limitation or quota based plan with transfer limitations they should be able to prioritize the applications they choose and their provider should be allowed to offer a service that allows them to do so. The proposal to keep the Internet “free and equal”, as is, would prevent this. Personally, I don’t think the prioritization of any packets should be allowed from content providers to network operators, between carriers or within their core networks but if someone has a cell or tablet, even more so when using it as a mobile hotspot or is in a rural area and can only get 1-2 Mbps on an RF signal or can only get a few Mbps on DSL, their provider should be allowed to give them the ability to choose which applications they want to prioritize.
    There a plenty of DPI technologies that allow for this and customized service offerings of this sort are working well in other countries. Any regulation needs to consider this differentiation but none do. The only reason the Internet has become what it is, is from very little regulation and the answer is what neither side proposes; Regulate the monopoly last mile operators to treat all packets equally when there are no technological limitations to deliver service capacity and leave the rest alone to the free market principles that have made the Internet great to allow consumers and providers the ability to create service offerings that they want. This is the only way to keep the internet free and equal and the way the law should be written. As is, Both sides are wrong!!

    • Carl M says:

      Well written.
      My company falls into the second group that the FCC does not even seem to acknowledge as existing – we are neither subsidized nor granted any monopolies – but would be subject to these same regulations(!). I would prefer to be left alone on all three (subsidies, monopolies, regulations), and compete in a free market. This will keep the Internet free and equal.

    • Anonymous says:

      only “monopoly last mile operators” get regulated?
      what about non-monopoly last mile newcomers?

      • Anony says:

        Why do you think new entrant last mile operators need to be regulated?

        What’s your concern?

        • Anonymous says:

          i don’t – just questioning his comment for clarification

          but i do wonder why no one questions google pricing as predatory pricing below market

    • Anony says:

      Todd, I have no doubt you have a point of view on this topic and something important to say, but after reading your above comment 2x, I’m not sure what it is.

      Carl M, since you seem to understand the above comment, maybe you can explain it? Thanks

      • Ident says:

        this seemed to be the point: “when party politics, uninformed activists and corporate influencers all weigh in on a complex issue that they do not understand the result is bad policy.”

        translation: leave it the eff alone.

  • Todd says:

    The point was that some providers should have the right to prioritize packets because consumers may want this ability when there are technological limitations in delivering bandwidth. If a monopoly has been granted and they are the only choice they should not be allowed to do this. Especially without disclosure. i.e Sure you have 20Mbps but you can only use 3 of them for video or other OTT apps that is not right. In monopoly cases their is no competition. If there is competition and a new non monopoly last mile provider chooses to operate a service that prioritizes traffic at least consumers have the ability to use someone else.

  • Todd says:

    Perhaps the best framework for this discussion is policy enforcement?

  • Todd says:

    Us, the readers here, are most qualified to chime in on this most important matter.

    • Cartagena says:

      No no no, politicians in Washington, advised by anti-business ideologues on one side and business people with bags of money on the other side… are most qualified! They do such a bang up job on everything else. /sarc

Leave a Comment

You may Log In to post a comment, or fill in the form to post anonymously.

  • Ramblings’ Jobs

    Post a Job - Just $99/30days
  • Event Calendar