Is Net Neutrality Principled?
If net neutrality is truly an Internet principle, would Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon all agree to abide by the same principle of treating everyone the same in conducting their Internet businesses? This is a relevant question because the Internet browser and Internet search markets are actually much more concentrated and less competitive than the wireless market to which they want to apply net neutrality.
No Internet Search Discrimination? Will Google, Yahoo and Microsoft pledge to treat all search results equally and not discriminate against content by ranking websites based on how much advertising they pay to be a sponsored listing? Will they agree to not have a two-tiers of Internet search, one with sponsored listings at the top for those who pay the most and another at the bottom for those that can’t pay?
No Internet VoIP Application Discrimination? Will Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and eBay all support the principle of treating equally every VoIP and communications application in price, terms, and conditions -- in gaining access to their platforms as the default provider?
- Will Microsoft agree to not discriminate in favor of its own default Live Communications Server application over competitive applications? (Like Vonage, AT&T Callvantage, Comcast Digital Voice, or Verizon Voicewing or others?)
- Will Google agree to not discriminate in favor of its own default Google Talk or its default “click to call� offerings over competitive applications?
- Will eBay agree to not discriminate in favor of its own default Skype offering over competitive applications?
- Will Yahoo agree to not discriminate in favor of its own default Yahoo Messenger with Voice offering over competitive applications?
Principles are supposed to be standards. The so-called “net neutrality principle� is looking more like a self-serving “double-standard� every day. One strict standard, that applies to broadband carriers, regardless of how competitive their market is. And no standard for ecommerce giants, that in many instances, face less competition than broadband carriers.
Double Standard
It does sound like a double standard to me as well. Content providers and internet providers both charge differing prices for varying services they offer the consumers. The only reason content providers seem to be complaining isn't because internet providers are going to control the internt, but because the content providers don't want to pay more money for better services just like the rest of us.
Good Post
I've seen this argument in several other places and still not managed to find one neutrality supporter who can debunk it. Neutrality is a lot like an ice berg. Abover the surface it has a few appealing features, but when one looks at the whole thing, 90% of it is submerged and deadly.
Iceberg
Like the iceberg comparison...
Software Neutrality
If Microsoft is so pro-neutrality, then why do they plan to offer six different versions of their new operating system? Wouldn't a neutral software policy state that the very best program should be made available to everyone, even if they don't need all the features available in the best program package? And while we're at it, maybe the government should regulate how much Microsoft can charge for its OS, because a lot of consumers have trouble paying the high prices.
Their advocacy of net neutrality as a protection of the consumer is a sham. They are only interested in their bottom line (no different than the ISPs) and... surprise, surprise... I find myself on the opposite side of this issue.
Burn...
Kudos for calling them out on this. I'd love to see what their answers to these questions would be, and if they'll now finally admit the hypocrisy of their position. Their stance on net neutrality is driven by profit motives, not their concern for the common good. We should all keep that in mind.
This isn't a surprise at
This isn't a surprise at all. Those that have majority rule over the Internet (Microsoft and Google) don't want competition for fear that you and I might go elsewhere for content. I suggest that instead of putting money in the mouths of lobbyists, musicians and actors, they should be putting those funds into R&D that will bring innovation and new technology to the Internet. Now THAT would be a surprise!!
EXACTLY..........and it is
EXACTLY..........and it is economics 101 that shows competition is ALWAYS good for the consumer.....great point.
I've been wondering about this...
This is a great point and one that I've actually been wondering about but haven't seen articulated until now. Bravo.
If net neutrality is such an important principle.
If neutrality is so important, why is Google making concessions to an oppressive government (China) just to make more profit? Hmmm... Maybe this is about money and not principle, and not about "neutrality" after all. Fair enough. however, I don't see any reason to have the government get involved.
At the same time, it's hard
At the same time, it's hard to blame google and microsoft for trying to maximize profits, that is what all large corporations do. However, it would be terribly irresponsible of Congress to concede to the lobbying ploys that the big corporations are throwing at them. This is a consumer issue, and we have to make it known that we, as consumers, are against NN.
Corp vs. Corp, and the consumer loses
You hit the nail on the head here. This is a battle between corporations. The ISPs on one side, and the content providers on the other. Both sides have political and celebrity supporters, and this battle has only gotten more heated as the last few weeks have passed.
When did our government stop thinking about what was best for the citizen and start trying to decide which bunch of corporations deserve their support? The consumer only stands to lose out from any additional government control of the Internet.