Monday, April 09, 2007
Extreme net neutrality
Over the past few years, there had been a trend toward extreme sports - people pushing the limits of human physical capacity and perhaps pushing the limits of common sense as people seek fame and glory.
There are extremist views that keep percolating from some elements in the discussion that threaten the nationalization of telecommunications infrastructure unless carriers embrace net neutrality. Whoa!
There is something about the threat of such expropriation of assets that makes you say 'hmmm'. My experience is that the investment community doesn't take kindly to doing business in countries that: a) nationalize infrastructure or private property; or, b) engage in extortion.
I would prefer to be able to simply ignore the extremist rants of some Canadian members of the Hugo Chavez fan club. They seem to be a loud minority, pining for simpler days of Ministries of Posts, Telephone and Telegraphs. Sorry - those days of central government planning and the associated glacial or geological pace of network evolution have been eradicated from most of the planet.
I'd prefer to discuss the issue of net neutrality on a level with some of the deeper thinking academics. There are serious questions to be addressed.
I'm even willing to acknowledge there are certain service provider misbehaviours that may warrant a modicum of contrition, consistent with my view that we generally have in place the necessary laws to safeguard reasonable rights.
Later in the week, I'll look at some examples of why I think the objectives of net neutrality just aren't realistic for customers who want advanced services.
The rapid pace of internet innovation we have witnessed to date has taken place without specialized net neutrality legislation. It seems to me that network neutrality is overly broad regulation that will serve stifle innovation.
The internet has proven itself to be a turbo-charged engine for economic growth in the information age. Network neutrality may result in shifting into neutral the enormous power of the internet in effectively moving information.
That is a risk that we can't take idly.
Technorati Tags:
nationalization, Hugo Chavez, net neutrality
There are extremist views that keep percolating from some elements in the discussion that threaten the nationalization of telecommunications infrastructure unless carriers embrace net neutrality. Whoa!
There is something about the threat of such expropriation of assets that makes you say 'hmmm'. My experience is that the investment community doesn't take kindly to doing business in countries that: a) nationalize infrastructure or private property; or, b) engage in extortion.
I would prefer to be able to simply ignore the extremist rants of some Canadian members of the Hugo Chavez fan club. They seem to be a loud minority, pining for simpler days of Ministries of Posts, Telephone and Telegraphs. Sorry - those days of central government planning and the associated glacial or geological pace of network evolution have been eradicated from most of the planet.
I'd prefer to discuss the issue of net neutrality on a level with some of the deeper thinking academics. There are serious questions to be addressed.
I'm even willing to acknowledge there are certain service provider misbehaviours that may warrant a modicum of contrition, consistent with my view that we generally have in place the necessary laws to safeguard reasonable rights.
Later in the week, I'll look at some examples of why I think the objectives of net neutrality just aren't realistic for customers who want advanced services.
The rapid pace of internet innovation we have witnessed to date has taken place without specialized net neutrality legislation. It seems to me that network neutrality is overly broad regulation that will serve stifle innovation.The internet has proven itself to be a turbo-charged engine for economic growth in the information age. Network neutrality may result in shifting into neutral the enormous power of the internet in effectively moving information.
That is a risk that we can't take idly.
Technorati Tags:
nationalization, Hugo Chavez, net neutrality
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 4/09/2007 06:41:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
infrastructure definition from Investopedia.com:
Transportation, communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all a part of infrastructure. These systems tend to be high-cost investments; however, they are needed for a country to be efficient and productive.
Companies do like to invest in countries with a nationalized infrastructures like roads, water, power, etc and especially communications! All of those things are or were nationalized in the G8 countries.
Bell Canada was a private corp and parts were bought up as crown corporations (nationalized) because they were doing bad things, especially in the prairies. Bell was heavily regulated for 100 years and only in the last 10yrs have the reigns come off... but they are still kept on a gov't leash.
If companies continue down the path to prevent net neutrality, then YES, we need nationalization. If companies are good corporate citizens the reigns can come off. But companies cannot be allowed play Bay Street games with our communications network.
Post a Comment
Transportation, communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all a part of infrastructure. These systems tend to be high-cost investments; however, they are needed for a country to be efficient and productive.
Companies do like to invest in countries with a nationalized infrastructures like roads, water, power, etc and especially communications! All of those things are or were nationalized in the G8 countries.
Bell Canada was a private corp and parts were bought up as crown corporations (nationalized) because they were doing bad things, especially in the prairies. Bell was heavily regulated for 100 years and only in the last 10yrs have the reigns come off... but they are still kept on a gov't leash.
If companies continue down the path to prevent net neutrality, then YES, we need nationalization. If companies are good corporate citizens the reigns can come off. But companies cannot be allowed play Bay Street games with our communications network.
Posted by 
: 1:34 AM, October 11, 2007
: 1:34 AM, October 11, 2007 << Home
Syndicate
