http://disqus.com/people/3874d41e4d7681e6d0809fb2c5390a62/enTue, 30 May 2006 23:28:39 -0000http://consumerismcommentary.disqus.com/verizon_fios_driving_down_comcast_prices/#comment-21301330I think one of the primary benefits of having FiOS in your area is the lowered cost that comes from increased competition. If FiOS truly were not a vlid competitor, the cable companies wouldn't be working so aggresively to prevent Verizon from locking down franchise agreements (look at New Jersey, for an example).internetfreeTue, 11 Apr 2006 21:25:16 -0000http://mathewingram.disqus.com/the_web_8212_not_democratic_but_open/#comment-1293901Hmmm. Very phuichi indeed, Ghoti :) I read the post you reference here, and noted that this is really a question of whether to charge consumers or charge content providers. We can debate which is the fairest way to distribute costs, while still maintaining profitability for service providers. However, I agree with Ghoti that government should not intervene without sufficient evidence that such intervention is absolutely necessary.internetfreeTue, 30 May 2006 23:28:39 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/will_the_house_regulate_the_internet_commerce_committee_considers_net_neutrality/#comment-1445285Just when you thing government could keep its hand of something, along comes net neutrality. What is particularly onerous about this legislation, is that it is being advance on the basis of that which might happen, versus that which has already happened. If we observe recent history, we realize that companies have done nothing to impinge upon the rights of Internet users. The only way is down if we decide to get Congress involved where they needn't be.internetfreeFri, 17 Mar 2006 21:46:01 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/net_neutrality_france_and_itunes/#comment-1445331From how I read this post, I think the argument was that the Itunes regulations were a natural EXTENSION of the proposed "net neutrality" legislation, not that the two efforts were analogous. The impetus for an attempt at governmental intervention is not to ensure that the public gets its tax dollars back, but rather because government wants to ensure that companies play nice. The latter reasoning might sound good, but invites unnecessary regulation, that will invariably lead to more restrictive legislation (a la France) in the future.internetfreeSat, 25 Mar 2006 16:58:22 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/here_we_go_again/#comment-1445553You bet there will be intense lobbying and litigation over the question of how government should regulate. Once government gets its regulatory mitts on this issue, it will be a feast for lobbyists. Given the atmosphere in Washington of late, is this really what we want for the Internet?internetfreeFri, 21 Apr 2006 22:29:13 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/so_you_still_believe_in_infrastructure_socialism/#comment-1445515I'm not sure why "pesky" municipalities are interested in perpetuating cable monopolies. Well, I have my guesses, but they should be advocating choice in their communities. As for New Jersey, isn't that their home state? It seems somewhat absurd that they aren't able to introduce FiOS in the state in which they are headquartered.internetfreeSun, 23 Apr 2006 22:48:40 -0000http://publishing20.disqus.com/the_democratic_web_has_always_been_an_illusion/#comment-13566578I think these are valid comparisons. If the issue is whether to charge consumers or content providers, it seems as though that should be for providers to decide. Of course, content providers and consumers do not have to pay. They may decide that it is not in their best interests, and that it is wrong to have to pay extra. In either case, the power is in the hands of the consumers. If net neutrality regulation passes, then the power is in the hands of government. Do we really think this will not have drastic consequences down the road?internetfreeTue, 30 May 2006 22:16:28 -0000