Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality 222

Posted by Zonk
from the not-in-their-best-interests dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Producers of networking hardware such as Motorola, Corning, and Tyco have come out against Net Neutrality. They support the current senate communications bill, and urge immediate action. 'Don't be confused by these spurious complaints about Net neutrality,' Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc., said. 'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'" From the article: "Supporters say the Senate measure, which was approved by a committee vote in June but has since gotten hung up chiefly over Net neutrality, is crucial because it would make it easier for new video service providers--such as telephone companies hoping to roll out IPTV--to enter the market, increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices. Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • They're right (Score:4, Interesting)

    by XanC (644172) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:03PM (#16155246)
    Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:06PM (#16155277)
    Basically what this all boils down to is that the phone/cable companies want to make more money for offering us "new" services (that are basically services that they offer now, but *over the Internet*). Of course, by extension, the equipment manufacturers will reap profits by selling everyone new hardware.

    The whole tiered Internet thing is based on the fact that they want to differentiate these "new" services from what we think of as the Internet right now (e-mail, web pages, etc.). They want to break up the current pricing structures so that they can charge more for certain bits.

    They last thing that telcos/cable-cos want is to become generic bit pipes. If moving bits around becomes just another commoditized service (like deregulated electric in some places), then they'll have to compete on price and customer service. Competing on price impacts profits, and competing on customer service...well, I've been a customer of GTE/Verizon, Southwestern Bell, and AT&T at different times and if I were them, I'd be scared of competing based on customer satisfaction.
  • Re:They're right (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bryansix (761547) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:06PM (#16155279) Homepage
    They wouldn't be regulating the Internet per se, but the way in which traffic was controlled by the ISP's. They would make sure all data flowed equally freely.
  • by Exocrist (770370) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:07PM (#16155293) Homepage Journal
    Why would "municipal broadband" be impossible with net neutrality?
  • by husker shiznit (617970) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:34PM (#16155527)
    Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore.
    Quote from worldofends.com [worldofends.com] which still remains true.
  • No regulation... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jscotta44 (881299) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:40PM (#16155578)
    The best idea is no regulation. Let the market decide. If people start trying to double up on charges or limit my access, then I'll change ISPs. The Feds need to stay out of this.
  • by GoodNicsTken (688415) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:45PM (#16155622)
    No kidding, especially since in 2005 the Teleco's pushed bills in most of the states outlawing new entrants from providing wireless service to communities. The Telecos wanted 1-2 years notice so they could deploy the service and bar any competition.

    The link is a map showing cities that have setup municipal broadband access BECAUSE the laws were defeated in many states.

    Not that I want my Internet service coming from the government. I'm sure my civil rights would be a top priority for the bureaucrats when the NSA comes looking for my data from the city government!

    Think about it, Smaller less intrusive government is the solution. Big governement has no business regulating the Internet in the first place. Without the guaranteed monopoly, I would probably have 4 fiber lines running to my house providing me with 10-20 service plans. Other countries are getting 100Mb service, what has kept the US free market from doing the same?
  • Google? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ijakings (982830) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:53PM (#16155693)
    I may be missing something here and someone may have alreay said it, but didnt google buy massive amounts of nationwide Dark Fiber a while back? Say someone on ISP A wants to get information from google at B, but they have to pass over backbone C, But google aint playing ball with Backbone C so they restrict their traffic. Couldnt google just send the data directly to ISP A over their Dark Fiber missing out Backbone C entirely? Feel free to flame/destroy me here
  • WTF (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rmadmin (532701) <rmalek@ho m e code.org> on Thursday September 21, 2006 @03:11PM (#16155856) Homepage
    it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services.

    Did I read this wrong? Some municipalities already offer their own broadband services. I know this because I'm "Broadband Services Coordinator" at a municipal utility. So I ask.. WTF?
  • Municipalities? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21, 2006 @04:45PM (#16156701)
    "It would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services..."

    You mean, like the Town of Norwood does now [norwoodlight.com] (and has been doing for years?)

    What on earth does net neutrality have to do with whether municipalities offer broadband?

    The Town of Norwood has had municipal electric power (and has for the better part of a century). They do a pretty good job. They didn't have much trouble convincing the Selectmen that poles are poles, trucks are trucks, and customer service is customer service... and that if they could do a good job on power wiring they could do a good job on broadband wiring.

    Norwood Light Broadband and Comcast compete in Norwood, and an unscientific survey suggests that they have roughly comparable numbers of customers.
  • by MadAhab (40080) <slasher@ahab.cEEEom minus threevowels> on Thursday September 21, 2006 @06:09PM (#16157359) Homepage Journal
    There's also hind-blindness - the ability of people to regard a negative outcome as something which could not have been predicted, despite the fact that they directly opposed and shouted down the voices who did, in fact, predict it.

    Example: like, the stifling of innovation on the Internet due to "pay-to-play" schemes in which every ISP is it's own version of the Chinese government.

    Another example: the collapse of Iraq into sectarian violence and increased Iranian influence.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...