Who Wins, Who Loses on FCC Internet Proposal?

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


May 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. regulators advanced a proposal to let Internet-service providers led by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. charge Web companies such as Google and Facebook to provide fast lanes for their content. “Big Bang Disruption” Author Larry Downes and Common Cause Program Director Todd O’Boyle speak on Bloomberg Television's “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Who is this good for and who is it that?

West it is not good or bad for anybody yet.

All we have got is a proposal very we have not seen the pacific.

Who would be good and that for if this ends up?

Class it is really business -- it is really business as usual anybody.

It is just a rewrite of the last set of rules and encoder -- a few months ago very best wire people protesting so much?

Him -- i do not know.

There is a lot of lyrical agenda going on here and a lot of his understanding.

Don't understand the details of it very is where people protesting?

Millions of people have taken action to raise their voice is because they recognize this does endanger the openness of the internet and threatens the vibrancy that has made the internet the trans-formative last form for free expression and or position online.

The truth is this takes us down a bad road and the should trouble anyone who cares of the openness of the internet.

Lie do you hate the openness of the internet?

I hated it for 15 years homage rain the time where they have known but there has been trillions of dollars of investment and all the apps we have got.

Companies like netflix take up 34% of internet traffic at the time.

Questec you had true open internet wills, you would think your next -- netflix speed is that now, watch what happened in a public utility like session.

We'll go even worse.

-- it will go even worse.

I wonder if that is part of the debate.

People want a faster internet connection.

It could happen.

Why is it such a bad and?

Lets you raise an important question.

United dates does lag the rest of the world, our global competitors in the developed world, in terms of the level of connect the video and the price we a or this is all because we have allowed companies, major industry players, to write their own rules of the game.

It is worth noting that for a time, we have strong protections and at that time, we had better consumer protections and open internet tensions.

Investments in jobs in the spirit as soon as we do that away, a consumer suffered, the innovation has offered.

It was with strong protections that innovation has worth and the internet has become a platform for self expression.

It is worth so much of our democratic discourse takes place there and if we start foreclosing the open internet, that is all jeopardized.

In a bigger picture.

At&t is potentially buying direct tv there and all of the net neutrality stuff is happening at the same time.

It is all related?

Class what is happening is, as technology gets better and cheaper at the same time, the content industry, like many others, is going to a chaotic form of creative distraction.

We are seeing all kinds start of his models emerge.

We see a lot of companies try to use the regulatory products and give themselves a leg up.

The truth is the technology is driving the change.

Five live should publicly traded companies bear the cost of providing highs the access from every business in the world?

That is not what this is about.

It is about allowing companies like comcast and time warner cable to the innovative about new ways to pad their bottom line.

If you give a pervert provider a fast lane online home allowing them to run around congestion and traffic online, you have created a perverse incentive to allow congestion to build up.

It is anticompetitive and builds an opportunity for content providers and carriers to favor their own content over editors so a company like comcast might be tempted to favor its own visit -- video-on-demand service versus competing.

That is collusive behavior area it does not help anyone.

-- behavior.

It does not help anyone.

No proposal that allows fast lanes is open internet.

Were net neutrality.

Tom says there will not be slow lanes.

Just fast lanes.

Is that possible?

How can they ensure -- fast lanes are getting faster than the not fast lanes.

We keep upping the ante.

We are at 2400 modems.

Everybody had a slow lane in my lifetime.

These continue to improve because technology gets better and cheaper so the possibility of having the public internet be fast and have the ability to offer content delivery networks, all as we have had in the last 10 years, that has worked.

I do not see anything that would take that away, but it could.

I worry about -- go ahead.

I agree we would all suffer if we had fast lanes online.

S lane for some is a slow lane for everyone else.

If you allow certain voices to pay priority, we know who that would be.

I am not the worried about whether the biggest of these in america will be able to work fast lanes online area i were there whether dissenting voices will be able to afford priority access.

This is also doesn't happen on a commercially reasonable basis and what does that mean?

The definition might change from one chairman to the spirit does not give innovators for entrepreneurs regulatory circuit -- regulatory certainty they need very all right.

Thank you for joining us.


This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change