Comments on: FCC launches Open Internet website

By: EE

EE — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:33:25 +0000

I agree, the restaurant analogy is ill suited at best. It seems akin to the content is like a physical product analogy. If wireless providers don’t want to provide access to the entire internet, they should not be allowed to call it ‘internet access.’

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:05:13 +0000

This curious “Restaurant Analogy” has been done to death, and always fails to strike any realistic comparison with internet usage. Face it, food is a finite, exhaustible commodity, while bandwidth simply IS NOT.

If you’re going to even attempt to use this parallel (though I really wish people would just give it up), at least put each of the elements in their proper perspective, and include all the parameters…

1) Does the “restaurant” TAKE THE MONEY UPFRONT, or make you sign a CONTRACT, before you can eat?

2) Does the “restaurant” ADVERTISE an “all you can eat” experience, and does it DELIVER that?

3) Does the “restaurant” keep up with the demands of its customers by ensuring it always has the stock, or does it always claim not have enough to go around, and “insist” on making numerous “concessions” to the “menu”, while refusing to refund or discount the customers’ payments?

4) Does the “restaurant” CONTINUE to advertise a “menu” it can’t deliver, while also CONTINUING to take in new clientele and accepting that money?

NOTE: In this analogy, the FCC proposal is comparable to “supply and demand” ordinances that are ALREADY part of standard Business Law in both the US and Canada. You can’t draw a parallel to a “compulsory menu” – that’s using some unwarranted form of “reverse logic”. They’re not proposing to tell providers what types of SERVICES they can or can’t offer. They’re proposing that whatever the providers intend to offer and take the money for, they better not be dictating HOW THE CUSTOMER USES IT.

If a restaurant actually did business even similar to the way the providers have, that restaurant would be cited on numerous violations of standard business practice!

By: Leeloo

Leeloo — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:34:07 +0000

That’s why I worry that the all-you-can-surf model for internet access is not sustainable. It’s akin to all restaurants being all-you-can-eat. Clearly, for light eaters it’s not a very good deal. But for heavy eaters, it’s great. Now imagine if those restaurants had no choice about whether or not they serve caviar and foie gras. Then it would be an even worse deal for light eaters who don’t have expensive tastes. In order to accommodate the FCC’s desire that internet providers not discriminate among content or applications, before long usage-based fees will probably be necessary.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/09/will_net_neutrality_lead_to_usage-based_internet_fees.php

By: Sukasa

Sukasa — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:09:07 +0000

Signed and emailed the link out. Let’s hope we can get even more signatures on that.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:31:48 +0000

And the CRTC is still in bed with Bell, Rogers and other monopolies.

Time for a change.

http://www.dissolvethecrtc.ca/