Comments on: WSJ’s factually challenged argument against net neutrality

By: chris dixon

chris dixon — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:15:14 +0000

What's inconsistent about saying we need competition for last mile ISPs but the market seems to be taking care of it (clearwire, fios etc) hence legislation is probably unnecessary? Perfectly consistent to me.

By: chris dixon

chris dixon — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:15:14 +0000

By: mattgattis

mattgattis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:49:36 +0000

I don't quite understand your position as in one paragraph you say there's not enough competition but you conclude that the legislation is unnecessary because competition is likely.

Personally I think there's plenty of competition to choose between if you're a startup and can put your servers in any data center around the country, but there's a big lack of competition at the “last mile” level in many homes. So I'm fine with usage based pricing for data centers (which there already is), but I think we need legislation to prevent my only home ISP options from controlling what (legal) content I'm able to access on the Internet.

By: Richard Threadgill

Richard Threadgill — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:45:46 +0000

Keep in mind, though, that Internet service has *always* been a commodity market, since its inception. I accept that service providers would like for that to stop being the case, but keep in mind that the *change* is for bandwidth to *stop* being a commodity.

By: spragus

spragus — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:13:40 +0000

Sometimes I am. I think net neutrality is a silly concept to worry about – from both the regulators' and users' point of view. The ISPs are basically utilities and should be paid accordingly- my gas analogy. The net is anarchy personified. – many issues here. And who will pay for it? Even the WSJ hasn't it figured out.

By: chris dixon

chris dixon — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:03:29 +0000

Sophisticated counter argument. You must be a WSJ op ed fan.

By: spragus

spragus — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:57:05 +0000

Sounds like we should move towards a model of everyone paying, say, $100 for car gas each month, no matter how much they use.

By: Jay Cuthrell

Jay Cuthrell — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:45:19 +0000

“Maybe the tech world has already given up on the WSJ.”

Yes. It's probably a great read if you take a series of tubes view of things. Also, the prior art of the WSJ walled garden, and the taste it leaves in tech world mouths, does not engender avid commenting. You can probably double your money on a bet that the lack of numerous comments actually supports some relic in a corner office that scoffed at the idea and concept of /comments/ in the first place.

By: MattCope

MattCope — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:53:58 +0000

Yes, I can see how that would be a major cause for concern.

As you can probably tell, I'm looking for a way to fulfill the interests of both the ISPs and the next gen of internet entrepreneurs.

It's difficult, though, to see a future where ISP's aren't utilities. Or worse, utilities facing stiff competition.

Thanks for helping me think through my stupid question.

By: Vijaya Sagar

Vijaya Sagar — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:04:50 +0000

Wireless being the saviour: Your guess is a good as mine. WiMax is widely deployed here in Indian metros. But it has its issues [my neighbour's WiMax antenna seems to insist on having a LoS with the tower!]. And I am not betting heavily on large scale adoption of broadband 3G data services. Not yet.