a reply to: Kuroodo
Jones is a great businessman. So its very interesting to see this response.
There are basically two levels to net neutrality:
1) The belief that carriers should not be able to block or slow down content based on the (legal) content
2) The belief that carriers should not be able to slow down or speed up content based on price.
The opposition to net neutrality is divided based on whether they are against just point 2 (telecom nerds), or points 2 and 1. (mass media shills no
one wants to watch.)
The first group, the telecom nerds, would like to be able to offer priority services to companies who run things like online gaming servers. 1/8
second latency will screw you up in a game, so the idea (for instance) is to push the gaming packets through with low latency at times of high network
traffic, so ATS gets the 1/8 second latency on page loads, which is not a big deal for just reading. These nerds claim that this model is necessary to
pay for better infrastructure, for fatter pipes in the long run: They can't pass all the costs on to users for infrastructure that doesn't need to
exist yet, they need to be able to charge long vision companies to do it. Their ideas are reasonable enough to debate.
The second group, the mass media shills, is involved in a fantasy, that cable TV will rise again and people will stop watching content from the
smaller sources they've discovered online, and that getting rid of a neutral internet is the way to do it. If Jones is aligned with this group, it
means he's reached a point where he's making enough money to really consider himself mainstream media, and is most threatened by other small guys.
That's an interesting thing to know about him, but these ideas really are insane.
The best critique of group 2 that I've read, hasn't come from the left at all (for all you folks wary of Obama here) it came from the weekly standard.
If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better
Internet. Sounds like capitalism.
And someone will be positioned to get rid of these cable companies if they get oppressive in their offerings and force shills on us. Last time I
experienced cable TV a few months ago was shocked at what an awkward 2003 Nokia flip phone of an experience it was. And like those early cell phone
makers, they got complacent and let their products go from cutting edge to just sitting on top feeling entitled to their profits while technological
possibilities went unchecked. The smart phone of TV and delivery infrastructure is now very much a possibility, and if the customer demand is there
(it will be) then spectrum and domain will follow, and silicon valley will take over yet another industry.
So those mass media shills need to let it go. One way or another, net neutrality or capitalism, people will get what they want.
14-11-2014 by tridentblue because: spelling