Today's cell phone system argues for retaining network neutrality

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
Net neutrality proponents foretell a grim future for the Internet if net neutrality is scrapped: one where technology stagnates because of high entry barriers and one where a small oligarchy controls what consumers can and cannot experience. Those who want to eliminate neutrality dismiss this as alarmist, and claim that net neutrality would remove the incentive for broadband providers to build the next generation of Internet infrastructure, which all agree is sorely needed in the US.

With such wildly divergent ideas about the effects of a simple policy, wouldn't it be nice if history provided some guidance from which to evaluate these claims?

It turns out that we have a privately owned and controlled network all around us, one that closely mirrors the technical functionality of the Internet, but where there has never been a requirement for net neutrality: the US cellular phone network.

Almost all cell phones sold in the developed world have the ability to send and receive SMS (short message service) text messages. SMS is gaining popularity in the US, but only as a way to send quick messages to friends. So why aren't there a wealth of amazing and interactive services available for mobile devices? Why is there no MySpace, Craigslist, Amazon, Flikr, or eBay accessible through this network? Why are cell phone payment systems and email systems nearly nonexistent? Why haven't charities raised money or awareness of their causes through this system?
(snip)


http://business.newsforge.com/business/06/07/19/206209.shtml?tid=138&tid=3

[Skinner]

1. Very interesting article.

Thank you for posting it.

[YankeyMCC]

2. You're welcome...for me this article really made the point clear for me

unlike the people currently occuping the white house I like to learn from history and example. ;)

[acmejack]

3. My Senator refused to be pinned down on Net Neutrality until she voted Nay

Kay Baily Hutchison. They lied up to the very hour she voted against it, telling me she was "undecided, listening to input". I sent a registered letter, explaining that if she could be bought for $11, 950, the amount SBC gave her, that she was worthless & I would do my utmost to see her removed from office. I hope we can get some support for our great candidate to unseat her, Barbara Ann Radnofsky. I would hope DUers would help us out!