tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1730224493265782064.post9164828334004680138..comments2011-08-14T11:51:09.812-07:00Comments on curioustask: netflix, level3, comcast & 'network neutrality'Sam Rushinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13115847299260965994noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1730224493265782064.post-23722520462589297002011-01-08T23:41:48.321-08:002011-01-08T23:41:48.321-08:00I think bandwidth-filtering and content-filtering ...I think bandwidth-filtering and content-filtering are entwined issues. And your subtle understanding of the issues will not survive once the ink hits the regulatory paper. Legislation has a way of enshrining historical artifacts... imagine all the modem-related regulations that we probably avoided by the previous hands-off policy.<br /><br />Another example. Two kinds of 'futures' are currently forbidden by SEC: onions and movies. The ban on movie futures was a blatant gift to the MPAA, and only happened last year. But the onion-futures ban dates back to the 50's.<br /><br />But yes, you have uncovered my true position. I think we should 'let' ISP's do *whatever the hell they want*, whether that means filtering out any mention of LGBT's, or any mention of Tiananmen, or replacing all pictures of Paris Hilton with pictures of Hedy Lamarr. Our job as consumers is to not let them get away with it. We have the ultimate power, which is the power to walk away from the deal.<br /><br />It's nice to imagine that you can ask the government to preserve network neutrality, but in the real world it just won't work. The law will just get co-opted by vested interests.Sam Rushinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115847299260965994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1730224493265782064.post-34060882209054172762011-01-07T10:58:54.984-08:002011-01-07T10:58:54.984-08:00In your example, the pipe provider could charge by...In your example, the pipe provider could charge by bandwidth. No need to discriminate by content.Martin MacKerelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481315473432331707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1730224493265782064.post-36572594357594875562011-01-06T21:35:34.495-08:002011-01-06T21:35:34.495-08:00The whole debate is silly, because the real proble...The whole debate is silly, because the real problem is lack of competition on the last mile.<br /><br />If we had true competition, then in an unregulated environment if Comcast wanted to do something stupid like redirect all traffic from Google to Bing, then you'd swap providers and the market would instill some semblance of fairness.<br /><br />The current situation is trying to dance around the competition problem by handcuffing the ISPs.<br /><br />There's no doubt in my mind that Comcast will protect it's cable business over it's internet business, because it knows that it's got a last mile lock on the market. So we're going to see some odd behavior from Comcast over the next few years as it desperately tries to hold on to it's cable revenues. Net neutrality is an admittedly misguided attempt to hedge against that future.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11951156377943242875noreply@blogger.com