Campaign: The Open Internet & Innovation

Instead of "regulating," just assure the right structure.

No one (like verizon, google, at&t, microsoft, cablevision, etc.) should be able to be in the business of laying cables AND being any kind of information or service provider that utilizes those cables and/or that network infrastructure. There simply is an inherent vertically integrated conflict of interest that gives a huge unfair advantage to the cable or phone company in question. We need to separate these two areas: ...more »

Submitted by (@dave.kliman)

Voting

6 votes
Active

Campaign: Workshop--Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet

The panelists missed a very important point...

I attended this workshop yesterday, and I got to listen to and converse with several of the panelists. The frustrating talk that I heard a lot from people on the panel was how, "well if this isn't profitable for the monopoly isps, then i guess we'll have to... *pay more *go slower *do less *give up freedom *compromise so that they can remain profitable when they 'offer us internet service.'" The representative from ...more »

Submitted by (@dave.kliman)

Voting

-6 votes
Active

Campaign: The Open Internet & Innovation

ISP's: the bus drivers of the information superhighway. why do we really need them?

In 1991, I was on the internet, directly, through UUCP. My ISP was a company based in my area that had bought a few T1 phone lines, and set up some modems that people like me could call into. For the most part, I was driving on the information superhighway in my own car. A very American way of getting around. When the telecommunications act of 1996 changed the rules about how much the phone companies could charge to ...more »

Submitted by (@dave.kliman)

Voting

8 votes
Active