NET NEUTRALITY
Can someone point me to a website that has the pros and cons of Net Neutrality. For some reason I don't think I can side with the Net Neutrality crowd for the below reasons:
- When Moveon.org is involved, it raises my suspicions.
- Google and Moveon.org are saying if this legislation does not past the ISPs can determine what content will be delivered to the masses. However, Google is already guilty of manipulating content by eliminating conservative blogs, news, and columunists.
- It appears that the Neutrality movement is a socialistic program to control costs or at least prevent ISPs from charging those that use their infrastructure.
- I'm usually opposed to any legislation that will limit the freedom of the internet. The information highway is one advancement that has largely developed without government interference. It appears that when a company such the content providers or search engines want to lock in the risk of cost they need the assistance of government to curb what ISPs will charge. It seems to me like rent control, instead of allowing the free market to determine the cost and price.
However, despite my reservations I would like to hear the other side of why this legislation is need.
posted by DCMASSHOLE @ 10:54 PM
4 Comments:
I managed the interactive marketing promotion of the Net Neutrality Ammendment account for the interactive agency I work for. I know alot about this issue and I have opinions on both sides. First off I must say, Googles involvement is clearly biased. They manipulate and rank and "priortize" almost every bit of information they provide to the masses. Thier entire business model is based on a PAY FOR PLACEMENT initiative. How's that for "unubstructed info delivery" ?Google's "information to the people" self-generated mantra is the bigest load of bullshit I've come across in recent history. They are ONLY interested in their bottom line, and that comes from their customers (including myself) who PAY for prominent placement on their network of sites and their ability to push that content out to the masses economically... They will strongly oppose any legislation that effects their ability to push the PAYED FOR infomation they provide to the public cost effectively.
This entire issue was generated over one major concern..the delivery of video content over the web. The biggest hurdle online content providers (ie google, MSN)have regarding video are the ISP's ability and WILLINGNESS to let them push that content over their network. ISP's have figured out that they are essentially the gatekeeprs with regard to rich media content and they want a payday badly.
Unfortunately, the ISP (including most major cable networks in the US) ended up having deeper pockets than the web firms who proposed the Net Neutrality ammendment. The ammendment did not pass. Unless this get reborn again, we will start to see increased costs for web video content; The free content providers such as Google, Yahoo and MSN will have to revisit their pricing models to justify the impending cost increases at the ISP levels for rich media content delivery.
Oh yeah, and also... all of this plays well into my theory that we will see google move toward a "pay for content" pricing model before too long. Even Sergi has to admit, you cant give away everything for free all the time and still turn a profit.
For some reason, I think that next year the legislation will get out of committee. Thanks for the info.
I still do not understand any of this and furtermore do not understand exactly what jason m does, although he has tried to explain it to me ad nauseum.
Post a Comment
<< Home