Parallels between national cable franchise argument and NN argument
Does anyone else see parallels between the argument that Verizon is making for national cable franchises and the Net Neutrality debate?
He is how I see the similarities:
Verizon says that they want be able to compete nationally on a level playing field with other cable operators. They say that small towns, such as Red Bank, are acting as gatekeepers saying who gets to provide cable TV services to homes in town. Sure, Verizon could provide a sort of video on demand service over their DSL lines but that wouldn’t be as good as true cable TV. Most consumers would end up sticking with true cable TV instead of using some slow, clunky DSL video on demand service.
Content providers say that they want to be able to compete on a level playing field with other content providers. They say that ISPs, like Verizon, want to act as gatekeepers saying who gets to have dedicated bandwidth to homes. Sure, the content providers could provide their services over the public portion of the ISPs lines but that wouldn’t be as good as having true dedicated bandwidth. Most consumers would end up using the ISP’s partner services that have dedicated bandwidth instead of using some slow, clunky public bandwidth service.
It really seems like the same argument to me. Anyone else see it differently?
