Found that Molly and I agree that technology is the answer we just continue to disagree on what that means for policy...
This would be much easier if CNET would just agree to do a podcast.
Molly,
You may not be aware of it but you are making my point for me. If all the Internet needs is bandwidth, why don't the online giants just invest in the last mile? Intel is doing it with $600m in Clearwire. Google, Microsoft Yahoo and the others could easily afford to bid on the current FCC wireless broadband auction. Or they could co-invest with existing telcos of cable companies to build faster pipes? Oh I forgot. Co-investing, sharing the investment cost burden of upgrading the Internet -- among those that benefit the most -- oh, that wouldn't be neutral -- can't have that.
You seem to have a "datatopian" view assuming that bandwidth is free or near free to produce. If it was indeed free, there would not be a fight over net neutrality. The rub is that someone has to pay for the network and that someone does not have to be only the consumer! What neutrality-ites efffectively propose is for consumer rates to go up in order to subsidize the free lunch online giant crowd. Why doesn't it make sense for those that want to use the Internet the most now -- and much more than anybody else in the future -- bear most of the cost of supplying that bandwidth? How is it unfair for those who produce the most traffic and burden would pay the most?
I totally agree with you that this is ultimately about technology. Moore's law enabled cable modems to replace dialup, improved DSL to be more competitive, enabled wireless broadband and DBS broadband to be cost effective, and enabled WiFi, WiMax, and broadband over powerlines to be economically feasible.
Technology is fueling more competitive choices! Technology and investment flourishes in a free market and shrivels up in a net neutrality regulated environment. Ask any investor if they would want to invest in a broadband technology if it was subject to net neutrality. No way! They would run for the hills becuase they know regulation kills innovation and the possibility for earning a return on their investment.
In the real world, preemptive regulation causes many more real problems than it potentially prevents.
