Yes and no. Consumers did foot the bill for TV programming, and it strains credibility to say that it was "efficient."
But it's also clear that the high quality network must be built.
The amusing thing for me is your post above about Cisco et al. - in their Wi-Fi business they're pretty much hemmed in by the business model of certain chip companies. That model will have to change, if Wi-Fi is ever to acommodate high QoS applications.
I suspect they won't be able to with the current unlicensed spectrum model.
Luv2Box
· 3 years ago
Of course the WSJ gets it - they are all about business and they really know their stuff because they actually research it (wow, big shocker in today's MSM!). Thank goodness we have a widely read publication taking a stand against Net Neutrality. Microsoft and Google are doing a good job of making consumers scared about AT&T and Verizon entering the Internet fray and this piece really puts it into perspective. Let's keep fighting!
Net Chick
· 3 years ago
WSJ does NOT get it. Other technology companies are coming forward to say this is NOT going to benefit the Internet. Why is this type of regulation needed right this second? How is NO competition good for ANY industry?
calamityjane
· 3 years ago
The NYT doesn't "get" it. The WSJ clearly does.
Faank
· 3 years ago
It's tough to argue against upgrading our current infrastructure, what with the services that are on the way and the fact that we're falling back in the international broadband race. Anything that would prohibit that, including NN legislation, is not a good idea. The Journal has its finger right on the pulse of this issue - great find.
watcher
· 3 years ago
The demand for reliable, high-quality data is only going to grow, and the infrastructure is going to have to grow with it. If network neutrality legislation passes, then the brunt of that upgrade is going to fall to the consumer. The WSJ has it right; NN will slow growth and hurt out ability to keep up with our ever-growing data needs.
MRT
· 3 years ago
The WSJ is correct in my opinion. At the current point in time, net neutrality laws would be a bad idea. Since their are no serious problems to be caused by companies buying up bandwidth, the only effect that we can guarantee is not having networks that can handle these new video services. As the WSJ says, the main concern should be figuring out how to fund a new tiered internet in a way that doesn't crush the consumer not involving the government in the internet based on hunches.
All Comments
But it's also clear that the high quality network must be built.
The amusing thing for me is your post above about Cisco et al. - in their Wi-Fi business they're pretty much hemmed in by the business model of certain chip companies. That model will have to change, if Wi-Fi is ever to acommodate high QoS applications.
I suspect they won't be able to with the current unlicensed spectrum model.