Electronic Cash News @

On the Net Neutrality issue, I tend to side on the side of the telecommunications providers. My reasoning is that Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. Content providers like Google and eBay are pushing Net Neutrality, but I do not see a dire need for new legislation at this time.

Are people dying? Is not the net not fairly neutral at this time? Are people being discriminated against or being taken advantage of where legislation would make a profound and positive effect? I do not think so. I would rather have less regulation than more. We do not need new laws just because Net Neutrality sounds like a good idea. We need new laws when there is a demonstrated and dire need that will have a positive effect on the public good.

It looks like tech manufactures are siding with the telecommunications providers in coming against Net Neutrality. Less regulation is the answer for now. We can re-visit Net Neutrality when and if it becomes a problem.

Digg.com posts, “Motorola and other tech types urge Congress to hold off on extensive rules they say could disrupt the way the Internet works.”

read more | digg story

Cute net-neutrality propaganda video on how all the big Telecoms are going to decide what we are going to surf and they will drive small online businesses out of business.

Digg post: “Welcome to the Internet of Tomorrow with Net-Neutrality out of the way.”

Not sure what the truth is on net neutrality. I do not think the Government should get involved with the internet except to protect people from harm. Net neutrality as I understand is advocating a lot of Government regulations.

I would like to see the Telecommunications industry maintain healthy competition in service offerings and invest in their infrastructure. This way we can have world-class internet service, but at the same time have cheap internet service. I do not want Telecoms restricting where I can surf or have multi-tier pricing or superior service for just selected content providers.

This term net neutrality sound nice, but it is really a proposal to regulate the telecommunications industry. It also continues to allow content providers such as Yahoo! and Google to get “free access” to consumers without having to invest in improving telecommunications infrastructure.

I hope the decision makers can see through all the hype and keep the internet rolling along getting bigger, better, and cheaper.

read more | digg story

A former FTC chief said we did not need Net Neutrality regulations. Now a FCC chief is proposing Net Neutrality regulations. A previous Digg posting said: “The head of the Federal Trade Commission on Monday expressed sharp skepticism toward proposed laws that would levy extensive Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers. Majoras said extensive Net neutrality legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate is unnecessary because there has been no demonstrated harm to consumers.”

The Net Neutrality debate can be confusing. I would think most people would be for Net Neutrality as it implies free access to content on the internet. The challenge is that nothing is ever really free. In this case, the cost is just passed on to the telecommunications companies instead of the content providers. The problem is that somewhere telecommunications companies have to generate revenue and profit so that they will invest in their infrastructure so that we can have faster internet. This can end up in outdated infrastructure with slow internet speeds and more costly internet bills for individual consumers.

An analogy to Net Neutrality is the Nation’s highway system. The majority of roads seem free (net neutrality), but in reality the taxpayers pay road taxes. Large trucks pay more (content providers). Toll roads are just additional premiums consumers pay for particular roads.

Again, nothing is free to include the internet. We are all going to pay for the internet one way or the other. The question is what is better for the public. Should we pay particular content providers that we use or should we pay the telecommunications provider? And in turn (the real debate), should content providers like Google and Yahoo! pay the telecommunications providers for better internet access to their customers? Some telecommunications providers say yes that heavy users on the internet (content providers) should pay more.

I’m not sure what the right answer is, but I like to keep things in the open, Net Neutrality is a politically charged phrase that can give out a wrong impression. The internet is not free. I like the approach that the FTC is taking where they ask the question, “does the content providers or the telecommunications providers’ actions hurt the consumer.” If we do not have relatively easy access to the internet and content providers, that is not good. If consumers have slow access to the internet compared to other countries for the same subscription price, this is not good either.

read more | digg story