NETCompetition.org

Pro Net Competition: Other Voices

Page 3 of 7 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

Net neutrality may not resolve Comcast vs. BitTorrent

November 30, 2007 - link >> Anne Broache, CNet News

Pro-regulatory groups including Public Knowledge have circulated press releases saying the episode demonstrates the “need for Net neutrality legislation.” A Comcast-related post on DailyKos was titled “Why we need Net neutrality.” Comcast, BitTorrent, and the phrase “need Net neutrality” appear in roughly 10,000 Web pages indexed by Google.

But even some supporters of new laws--which would enact antidiscrimination regulations aimed at broadband providers--are now reluctantly conceding that the proposals that have been circulating in Congress for more than a year may not do much to stop Comcast. (The company, a cable operator and broadband provider, has been sabotaging some peer-to-peer file transfers, which dramatically slows them down, although the file tends to be delivered eventually.)

CAGW Says Government Should Leave the Telecom Industry Alone

October 10, 2007 - link >> Citizens Against Government Waste

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released a new report on four critical telecommunications issues, urging the government to refrain from interfering with innovation and allowing the private sector to provide the best value and services for taxpayers and consumers. The publication addresses cable a la carte programming, the Internet tax moratorium, network neutrality, and spectrum sales.

CAGW President Tom Schatz said, “Over-regulating the telecommunications industry will have detrimental effects on the diversity of goods and services provided while wasting billions of tax dollars. The newest innovations will come about because of less – not more – government intervention.”

CAGW’s report cites current telecommunications debates and the federal government’s temptation to regulate the industry as symptoms of larger problems. While the private sector speeds ahead with more innovation in response to consumer demand, the federal government lags behind trying to play catch up and fails to see the impact of its policies on taxpayers and consumers.

Feds OK Fee for Priority Web Traffic

September 06, 2007 - link >> AP, Forbes

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to “Net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

FTC Urges Restraint on Net Neutrality Proposals

August 27, 2007 - link >> Steven Titch, Info Tech & Telecom News

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff in June urged policymakers to go slow on regulating broadband business models, particularly in mandating network neutrality, citing an already-high level of competition among broadband providers.

FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras summarized the findings, telling the Associated Press that without evidence of “market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policymakers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area.”

Net neutrality? Google, go first!

August 02, 2007 - link >> Johna Till Johnson, Network World

You’ve got to admit that when it comes to public relations, Google totally rocks. The company’s goofy name has become the generic term for “search the Web”—a branding coup your average Madison Avenue marketing wizard would kill his grandmother for. And the company’s motto ("Don’t be evil") and ostentatious eco-friendliness successfully promote the image of a wacky company that just wants to be your best buddy.

But that’s nothing compared to Google’s amazingly Orwellian effectiveness at re-working terms like “openness” and “neutrality.” On Planet Google, what “openness” really means is “other companies should share their resources so Google can gain a competitive edge.” And “neutrality” means “telcos can’t be trusted to charge fair market rates for the use of their infrastructure, and we need the feds to force them to.”