Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Martin Says FCC Has Authority To Enforce Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean they will. Since he also states that "he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment." Former Chairman and Gorilla lap dog, Mike Powell, says everything is great and consumers will continue to win. I'd like to know how he defines winning and consumer. A New York Times Editorial is pro Net Neutrality, suggesting that the greedy b@stards that run the Telcos will suck every dime out of the consumers pocket that they can. Other articles suggest that it is big media (Google) versus big telco. My money is on Google, since the telcos have had a continuing brain drain for 3 straight years. This argument is so important that many people, groups and institutions are starting to weigh in. As DSLR asks: Is it about incumbents pulling a new profit stream out of thin-air to help fund inevitable (IP video cometh) network upgrades? And if so, haven't we already paid for those network upgrades from 1996 to 2006 with all the rate hikes? (Ask Bruce about the Tele-Barons' $200B Scandal).