Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Net Neutrality and monopolies suck
I have noted in the past about the "tipping point" the point in time where demand exceeds capacity. It now appears that the largest telco agrees with me, and others, that the time is near.Verizon and others haven't invested all that money in fiber optic infrastructure because they believe it is a public service; they've done it to make a profit, and profit (big time) they will.
Net Neutrality is a bad concept in that it interferes with the marketplace. Better that Net Neutrality should be used to define the concept of "neutral access," access allowed to any and all Content providers on a reasonable-cost basis. Infrastructure must be separated from Content provision; this means Cable, Telco and satellite, WiFi, Powerline and other infrastructure must be weaned away from their monopolies, by force if necessary, to allow a la carte Content providers reasonable access to infrastructure.
Who pays? Cable and telco would like their ownership of infrastructure to give them the same monopoly profits as cellular provides; that is charging "both sides" for usage of the infrastructure. And maybe that will work, if there is a truly competitive marketplace from which to source the Content you want, when you want it.
I believe that if infrastructure is separated from Content, that bandwidth metering will become the normal standard for charging consumers, who will make choices of what Content they want, when they want it, and where. It isn't so hard to see a business model wherein the new "Mission Impossible 5" is offered to all comers as a new Release Pay-Per-view on the Internet, say at $7.00, $10.00, even $12.00 for a viewing household. It doesn't take a math genius to see that even 20,000,000-30,000,000 million households would subscribe, just in the U.S., leading to a minimum gross of $140,000,000 plus!, up to $360,000,000 plus or more. People would gladly pay, with the difference in cost being absorbed in the gas, popcorn, candy, and soda savings.
However, that does require a slight (sarcastic joke)increase in bandwidth.
Net neutrality unfairly penalizes consumers and minimum-level Content bandwidth users by assuming that Content A is more, or less, valuable than Content B. The problem of bandwidth capacity, which is what leads to this discussion in the first place, can be cured by merely allowing the infrastructure providers to invest in their highly profitable future by adding to bandwidth. It is no accident that 13 other countries offer higher bandwidth penetration, at lower costs, than the U.S.
Now there's a place for Congress to get busy! How could that happen? Could it be that the monopoly infrastructure we have allowed, and the "asleep at the switch" regulatory authorities have allowed the infrastructure providers to get too big, haven't forced competition, haven't forced "reasonable access" to Content providers?Cable has enjoyed over $200,000,000 Billion EXCESS profits (that's Billions with a big "B" folks) in the last twenty years because of allowed monopoly.
If you really want an Internet that works for you, get your friends and neighbors, your legislative representatives, to take a hard look at the numbers. Hold their feet to the fire of the voting booth and don't let lobbyists and contributions buy them off.
A free market really works when it is free, and not manipulated by special interests, and as currently exists, monopoly participants.
Net Neutrality is a bad concept in that it interferes with the marketplace. Better that Net Neutrality should be used to define the concept of "neutral access," access allowed to any and all Content providers on a reasonable-cost basis. Infrastructure must be separated from Content provision; this means Cable, Telco and satellite, WiFi, Powerline and other infrastructure must be weaned away from their monopolies, by force if necessary, to allow a la carte Content providers reasonable access to infrastructure.
Who pays? Cable and telco would like their ownership of infrastructure to give them the same monopoly profits as cellular provides; that is charging "both sides" for usage of the infrastructure. And maybe that will work, if there is a truly competitive marketplace from which to source the Content you want, when you want it.
I believe that if infrastructure is separated from Content, that bandwidth metering will become the normal standard for charging consumers, who will make choices of what Content they want, when they want it, and where. It isn't so hard to see a business model wherein the new "Mission Impossible 5" is offered to all comers as a new Release Pay-Per-view on the Internet, say at $7.00, $10.00, even $12.00 for a viewing household. It doesn't take a math genius to see that even 20,000,000-30,000,000 million households would subscribe, just in the U.S., leading to a minimum gross of $140,000,000 plus!, up to $360,000,000 plus or more. People would gladly pay, with the difference in cost being absorbed in the gas, popcorn, candy, and soda savings.
However, that does require a slight (sarcastic joke)increase in bandwidth.
Net neutrality unfairly penalizes consumers and minimum-level Content bandwidth users by assuming that Content A is more, or less, valuable than Content B. The problem of bandwidth capacity, which is what leads to this discussion in the first place, can be cured by merely allowing the infrastructure providers to invest in their highly profitable future by adding to bandwidth. It is no accident that 13 other countries offer higher bandwidth penetration, at lower costs, than the U.S.
Now there's a place for Congress to get busy! How could that happen? Could it be that the monopoly infrastructure we have allowed, and the "asleep at the switch" regulatory authorities have allowed the infrastructure providers to get too big, haven't forced competition, haven't forced "reasonable access" to Content providers?Cable has enjoyed over $200,000,000 Billion EXCESS profits (that's Billions with a big "B" folks) in the last twenty years because of allowed monopoly.
If you really want an Internet that works for you, get your friends and neighbors, your legislative representatives, to take a hard look at the numbers. Hold their feet to the fire of the voting booth and don't let lobbyists and contributions buy them off.
A free market really works when it is free, and not manipulated by special interests, and as currently exists, monopoly participants.
Labels: bandwidth usage, Cable comapny, cable monopoly, competitive access, content access, Internet, Internet capacity, Internet infrastructure, net neutrality
