Group items tagged

These local phone and cable companies fear that they will have to compete with governmentsubsidized broadband systems, paid for largely with stimulus dollars. If the taxpayer-funded networks siphon off customers by offering lower prices, private companies might be less likely to upgrade their lines, endangering jobs and undermining the stimulus plan's goals, they warn.

The Wired for Wireless? Summary Report1 uses the term “Digital Inclusion” to denote the ability of everyone to have access to broadband and the related information technology.  Specifically it states:  “Digital Inclusion means that everyone — regardless of who they are or where they live — can participate in and take advantage of the economic, educational, health, and civic opportunities afforded by broadband and related information technology

The federal government has taken the position that broadband Internet is the job of the private sector

The Economist also says Net Neutrality is a means to preserve openness, though the piece fairly outlines its many cons.  Without Net Neutrality, proponents of government regulation argue Internet service providers will create a closed Internet by blocking content or permitting some websites to ride on a “fast-lane” above others.  However, this, too, should be decided by consumer choice in the free market, not by prescriptive rules from the FCC that mandate extremely “open” business models.  Consumer preferences in the free-market alone have long ensured that ISPs do not block websites.  Additionally, prioritizing traffic helps prevent congestion, and the model of offering paid fast lanes is utlized by mostly “open” companies like Google to ensure their service is fast enough for consumers in places far from their servers.  Finally, paid prioritization would provide a new revenue source for ISPs to lower prices and invest in broadband expansion, speed, and other services – something that can be very good for consumers.  Net Neutrality and the FCC's lingering attempt at broadband reclassification could take all these potential benefits away.

The court’s ruling could potentially affect content providers like Google, which owns YouTube, a popular video-sharing service. Content providers fear that Internet service companies will ask them to pay a fee to ensure delivery of material like high-definition video that takes up a lot of network capacity.

The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.

The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent,