Comments on: Free Market, Net Neutrality, and Common Carriage http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:06:52 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Richard’s Blog » Blog Archive » High Speed Internet Satellite http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/comment-page-1/#comment-146 Richard’s Blog » Blog Archive » High Speed Internet Satellite Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:01:25 +0000 http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/#comment-146 [...] Of course, in Japan they can get 100M in most places for the equivalent of $40 a month, since the US is way behind many countries like Japan, for a number of reasons, one of the main ones is because the cable and dsl companies don’t have to abide by common carriage, so don’t have any competition (as I’ve noted before). [...] [...] Of course, in Japan they can get 100M in most places for the equivalent of $40 a month, since the US is way behind many countries like Japan, for a number of reasons, one of the main ones is because the cable and dsl companies don’t have to abide by common carriage, so don’t have any competition (as I’ve noted before). [...]

]]> By: Greg http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/comment-page-1/#comment-142 Greg Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:16:49 +0000 http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/#comment-142 Competition is a good thing in my book. I am surprised by the supreme court ruling negating the common carriage law. I think this statement taken from the common carriage site describes why competition is important. Specifically, that prior users receive greater benefits from their own access. Telecommunications have "positivie externalities," such that as the network expands with new users, uses and greater interconnection, prior users receive greater benefits from their own access. Networks can greatly contribute to the economic growth of individuals, regions and the nation. Where does this leave the late bloomers? How does removing common carraige affect underserved or rural regions? Competition is a good thing in my book. I am surprised by the supreme court ruling negating the common carriage law.

I think this statement taken from the common carriage site describes why competition is important. Specifically, that prior users receive greater benefits from their own access.

Telecommunications have “positivie externalities,” such that as the network expands with new users, uses and greater interconnection, prior users receive greater benefits from their own access. Networks can greatly contribute to the economic growth of individuals, regions and the nation.

Where does this leave the late bloomers?
How does removing common carraige affect underserved or rural regions?

]]> By: Basanta http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/comment-page-1/#comment-141 Basanta Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:33:55 +0000 http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/#comment-141 Technologies like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) has in a lot of ways changed the way telecommunication industries operate. Therefore, classification of broadband companies as information services alone doesn’t make much sense. I recently subscribed cable internet for my apartment and the only option I had was fidelity. Now, the 1.5Mbps plan costs around 44.95 whereas in St. Louis, my friends are getting 5Mbps plan for less than that (I believe its Charter) and they have multiple providers to choose from. Limiting competition is always a disadvantage for the consumers any way we look at it. Technologies like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) has in a lot of ways changed the way telecommunication industries operate. Therefore, classification of broadband companies as information services alone doesn’t make much sense. I recently subscribed cable internet for my apartment and the only option I had was fidelity. Now, the 1.5Mbps plan costs around 44.95 whereas in St. Louis, my friends are getting 5Mbps plan for less than that (I believe its Charter) and they have multiple providers to choose from. Limiting competition is always a disadvantage for the consumers any way we look at it.

]]> By: Christian http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/comment-page-1/#comment-140 Christian Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:16:15 +0000 http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/#comment-140 My comment on the first story probably fits better here - oh well. :) This really gets to the heart of my problem around this issue - there is a lack of competition in the market and so when these deals come up that are bad for me as a consumer there are no great competitive counterpoints coming along to innovate or make my experience better. AT&T signals to Charter that they're going to do X and Charter can say "Great, we can make more money that way" and follow suit - there's nothing pulling these companies away from maximizing their profits on the backs of their captive consumers. There's no pull to innovate because implementing blocks and keeping a death grip on yesterday's business model is soooo much cheaper. I would agree that regulation here might be counterproductive *IF* there was any actual competition in the space. One can only hope that Verizon's FiOS and (maybe?) Google's dark fiber might do SOMETHING to open up some actual consumer choices out there but I'm not hopeful and that's why I think government action is probably the only solution for the time being. (And what exactly is Google doing sitting on all of that anyway..? I thought we would've seen something out of them by now.) My comment on the first story probably fits better here – oh well. :) This really gets to the heart of my problem around this issue – there is a lack of competition in the market and so when these deals come up that are bad for me as a consumer there are no great competitive counterpoints coming along to innovate or make my experience better. AT&T signals to Charter that they’re going to do X and Charter can say “Great, we can make more money that way” and follow suit – there’s nothing pulling these companies away from maximizing their profits on the backs of their captive consumers. There’s no pull to innovate because implementing blocks and keeping a death grip on yesterday’s business model is soooo much cheaper.

I would agree that regulation here might be counterproductive *IF* there was any actual competition in the space. One can only hope that Verizon’s FiOS and (maybe?) Google’s dark fiber might do SOMETHING to open up some actual consumer choices out there but I’m not hopeful and that’s why I think government action is probably the only solution for the time being. (And what exactly is Google doing sitting on all of that anyway..? I thought we would’ve seen something out of them by now.)

]]>