Delete comment from: Google Public Policy Blog
I'm entirely open to hearing more about the technical limitations of current wireless infrastructure that would make non-neutral networks a bad thing (in terms of applications you could run, hold up to America as a leading innovator, that sort of thing.) However, I very strongly object to your claim that the cellular marketplace is competitive.
Providers—AT&T, Verizon, Sprint et al—only compete up front for new customers. The comparative qualities of Verizon and AT&Ts networks is wildly cited as a reason for reduced iPhone uptake, for example. But once they have you, no matter who, you're there for 24 months. Contractually tied in to whatever they do to their network in that—frankly—very long period of time. If that industry is as fast changing as you say (and I believe that it is) that sort of contractual lock in is a massively countenance to consumers being about to respond to unpopular/undesired/etc. network policies of their provider. Were Verizon to announce that they would prioritize Yahoo! Video and YouTube over Vimeo and College Humor, for example, I would be unable to quit in protest. I would be unable as a consumer to act on the alleged competition between these networks.
Maybe they are competitive in the long game. But not in a way that benefits consumers day-to-day, to which net neutrality contributes.
Since customers are to be contractually prevented from using the market to respond to neutrality violating policies, then it is necessary for their neutrality interests to be enforced from above. Granting the networks a pass is unacceptable without direct consumer empowerment as well.
Aug 13, 2010, 4:27:55 AM
Posted to Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal