2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have a background working in the telecom and ISP industry chasing stock option dreams, before reality set in. The biggest risk isn't just slowing access to websites, but using bandwidth monitoring and control to manipulate the user experience in order to reinforce an existing monopoly.

A perfect example of this is if an ISP decided to filter, restrict, or slow the packets used to support a VoIP (voice over internet, such as Vonage) in order to "force" you to use the ISP's own voice service. Likewise, the same could occur for video on demand services that are starting to exist on the internet (iTunes, Vudu, Amazon unboxed, etc), Comcast could use the same imposed limits to make it difficult to use competing services.

There are 2 sides to this, of course. Bandwidth isn't "free", but it is cheap. The issue is still that some users monopolize the available bandwidth, possibly for illegal activities. In other "utilities" such as water, sewer, or power your neighbor doesn't really have the ability to impact you with their activities. Just because your neighbor over waters their lawn doesn't limit your ability to have running water. This isn't the same for internet traffic, however there are better methods to insure "fair" sharing of the connections within a given area.

There are no easy answers for a company that lives in a capitalist market. I think a public owned option is a great idea, however all Internet connections need some level of policing and I don't know of many government agencies that have that ability today.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context