« Open Standards Mandatory in Denmark | Main | 28 next month, Mom still cuts my hair »



I agree that the speed of YouTube clip is ironic, however for a different reason. Contrary to your implication this video isn't being degraded, slowed or throttled. It does highlight the imminent broadband crunch or lack of broadband infrastructure. The popularity of sites like YouTube and video sharing in general are growing at an exponential rate and the current system cannot handle the capacity. So the internet cannot become TV and even Google after shelling out a cool $1.65 billion for YouTube is objecting to internet based TV.


I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition on this issue. The net neutrality debate isn't about the ISPs "owning the internet", it's about enacting regulations that would crush innovation online and certainly not speed up broadband deployment.As Peter Huber puts it,

"[”Net neutrality” would] put a real drag on new capital investment in faster digital pipes by making it illegal for many big companies to help pay for them, while leaving everyone guessing about the details for years. That last bit is great news for all the telecom lawyers (like me) who get paid far too much to make sense out of idiotic new laws like this one."


Just some things to think about as this issue isn't a simple one.


Careful, folks...

This comment (just below) by "HOTI" is a loaded one by a telco lobbyist, with mad skills for confusing the issue.

The very name "Hands Off the Internet" for encouraging NO REGULATION of telcos which would permit them to charge discriminatory fees for bandwidth access is a double negative that should ring the alarm bells.

It is an example of astroturfing against Net Neutrality that needs to be seen.


The truth is, the capital costs of telcos and cable companies are included in the rates that subscribers (and ISPs that rent space on the wires) already pay. This is solely about the last-mile carriers trying to squeeze out competitors like VOIP services, so that they can charge more for their own versions that customers cannot opt out of using.

There is one solution that has not been discussed yet, and that is mandating separate ownership for the physical infrastructure and the service providers that use it. Personally, I think it is time to finally do what is right for CONSUMERS by taking away the incentives for monopolists to misuse their power to restrain competition.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sam Hiser




This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from swhiser. Make your own badge here.

Locations of visitors to this page

Search PlexNex


View Sam Hiser's profile on LinkedIn

Powered by TypePad