Network providers who oppose net neutrality claim that without the ability to prioritize traffic based on content their networks will be overwhelmed. Of course there are serious conflicts of interest that go along with that capability such as banning Skype traffic so as to encourage sales of the provides VOIP service. If the problem is a crowded network, it makes more sense to charge users based on the amount of bandwidth the use. Since many providers are already exeperimenting with such schemes, their argument against net neutrality appears disingenuous.
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Bandwidth Anti Net Neutraility Argument is Flawed
Network providers who oppose net neutrality claim that without the ability to prioritize traffic based on content their networks will be overwhelmed. Of course there are serious conflicts of interest that go along with that capability such as banning Skype traffic so as to encourage sales of the provides VOIP service. If the problem is a crowded network, it makes more sense to charge users based on the amount of bandwidth the use. Since many providers are already exeperimenting with such schemes, their argument against net neutrality appears disingenuous.
Labels:
anti-trust,
bandwidth,
competition,
internet,
net neutrality,
regulation
Friday, June 26, 2009
Independent Non-Profit Public Health Care Option

Much of the debate about health care reform has centered on whether or not to have a public option. Simultaneously some are arguing that it would be very inefficient, but at the same time be cheap enough to put private insurance companies out of business. On the face of it that seems absurd, but one reasonable objection I've heard is that a government system would be subsidized in a way that would give it an unfair advantage. Another expressed concern is that a public option's sheer size would give it bargaining clout to negotiate lower drug prices. I don't feel that's a valid objection as not only is that a good thing, but also private companies could in theory band together in their purchasing. I believe that the public option should be a non-profit business set up by the government, but then run as a separate entity. Its charter would direct its policies, but it would not have the onerous requirements of being a government agency. It should be allowed to fail if it performed badly, although initially it would require some public investment to become established. To further reduce the temptation for it to be bailed out and to add more competition, in theory multiple non-profits could be set up although that should probably be considered only after the first one was successfully in operation. I am developing a system for blending public and private activities in general and will post about it once it's more fleshed out.
Labels:
competition,
government,
health care,
non-profit,
privitization,
reform
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
