Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Right, its their call. It may restrict consumer choice but as a private company in business to make a profit, aren't they free to choose what is best for their Bottom Line? If it's *their* hardware aren't they free to do with it as they choose?
So 2 things to consider: 1) the financial interests of the Carriers who own the actual, physical network hardware and allow content to be run on their hardware (it is after all *their* hardware, which they invested decades and billions of their own private capital in R&D and infrastructure creation) and, 2) the rights of the applications that run on that hardware, such as Amazon, Yahoo, Google, TFP, FaceBook, Boeing, AAA, etc. Should Amazon and the like dictate the rules, or should Comcast and the like? Are the Detroit Lions more important than Ford Field? It seems like there is the potential for a nasty conflict of interest here. I agree with those here that the Content is the thing, but from a purely legal and financial viewpoint its going to be hard to tell Comcast how to run its own networks.
|
As mentioned by Martian and others, the private property argument only carries any weight if they didn't use any public land. Why should the owners of the hardware be given absolute power over what goes through that hardware, but the owners of the land that hardware is in, which is the public, be given no say in what goes on in that.
Property rights also apply to public property.