Barry Diller spoke about the various aspects of the media today. We looked at what he had to say about the The Daily Beast/Newsweek deal, The Daily, and the iPad here.
Diller also spoke for a bit about net neutrality. “We are not where we should be,” he said. “We need an unambiguous rule – law that nobody will step between the publisher and the consumer.”
He went on to say that he finds it “really surpsing” that when he talks to different groups, that there aren’t more people screaming on the part of all of the people who are in various ways – creating, thinking, and using the Internet. “I’m not saying we should overthrow the government,” he noted, but seemed to call for more vocal action from the people.
He took a subtle jab at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial policy, calling it “wacky” (his second jab at News Corp. – following comments about The Daily). He described the WSJ’s stance of it being “a terrible thing” to have rules and laws for net neutrality, on the basis that it would “impede investment”.
What will happen, Diller said, is that they’re going to have to build more capacity to accommodate the increase in online video, and they will charge for usage (which he said he thinks is appropriate), but the people who control the broadband will say that they feel it’s their right to say when they think entities are using too much, so they should pay if they’re pushing the bandwidth out. “It would be like asking a toaster to pay for the electricity,” he said.
He said he doesn’t think it would be the death of entrepreneurship, but that what would be terrible is that the Internet would follow the pattern of other communications media from the last hundred years – in the hands of the very few, where editorial politics come into play – and whoever can pay the most wins.
"If we, the Web’s users, allow these and other trends to proceed unchecked, the Web could be broken into fragmented islands. We could lose the freedom to connect with whichever Web sites we want," he adds. "The ill effects could extend to smartphones and pads, which are also portals to the extensive information that the Web provides." 
First of all, as far as Android is concerned, Google says, "This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed."
Pitted against this insatiable demand are wireless networks of finite and shared resources. Wireless networks simply cannot provide the same amount of capacity as wireline networks (i.e., DSL and cable). Fiber is to a wireline network what spectrum is to a wireless network, and as a transmission medium, the two simply do not compare. The theoretical top speed of a LTE carrier is 100 Mbps. By contrast, theoretical transmission speeds on fiber can reach as high as 25,000,000 Mbps. The 5 extra zeros tell the story. 
Mobile is a huge part of Facebook use, so it makes sense for Facebook to want to preserve wireless neutrality. It may not be the biggest part (yet), but it’s a significant part. Last month, Facebook’s head of mobile products, Eric Tseng, said Facebook has 150 million users accessing the social network through phones and other mobile devices. He also talked about some big plans for the company’s 
allow both sides to ‘reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.
As reported by