I suggest you read the article here. He states:
Bret comments that the amount of bandwidth that will be consumed on the Internet during the next several years will outstrip the availability of bandwidth (therefore the term exaflood). I couldn't agree more. Just think about how much more data you personally use on the Internet today than you did two years ago. Then, tack on more and more rich media content sharing & distribution (more MP3's, full movies, televsion shows) and then increase the quality (full screen resolution, high definition, etc) and then start to think about all the business applications for rich media (video conferencing, healthcare imaging, etc). That's a lot of bits & bytes.Today's networks are not remotely prepared to handle this exaflood. Wall Street will finance new telco and cable fiber optic projects, but only with some reasonable hope of a profit. And that is what net neutrality could squelch.
But, that's not really Bret's point. He argues that government regulation can (and will) stifile investment on behalf of the physical network service providers. I couldn't agree more. As is, these guys are having a hard time making a go of it. Let them recoup some of their investment however they see fit. Two of the largest back-bone network providers in the US, Cogent and Level 3, aren't doing too well on the profit front - so why make it even more difficult. If it weren't for traditional voice services our old Ma Bell babies would be hurting too. These telecoms firms have spent billions of dollars in capital expenditures and their shareholders deserve the right to recoup this capital and (ideally) generate a return.
Unfortunately, the mere discussion of this topic has already caused pause in investors minds. Let our capital markets work freely -- that strategy seems to have worked well in the past.
