Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 5-01-2006

by Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality Links

I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.

AT&T and Verizon: We Own Your Congress

The Center for Public Integrity compiled a list of the top 100 money-givers to Congress between 1998 and 2005, and telcos dominate the list.

Here are a few of its findings:

* Verizon Communications Inc. $81,870,000
* SBC Communications Inc. $58,035,037
* AT&T Corp. $53,349,499
* Sprint Corp. $47,276,585
* BellSouth Corp. $33,732,827
* Qwest Communications International Inc. $24,523,480

Policy Analysis: “Net Neutrality� Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?

Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.

The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential “gaming” of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.

The Struggle for Net Freedom

To get a sense of the bargain the industry is proposing, imagine if the maker of your toaster had to give a cut of the sales price to the electric company before it could be turned on. Or suppose the post office charged you to mail and receive the same package if you wanted it sent first class.

[Many, many great links here.]

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments

  1. Hey Liz,

    Firstly, a heads-up: I’ve started up SmallOfficeHerald.com to take over from my previous blogs.

    But more importantly, I’m trying to do my small bit with the net neutrality issue – I have set up a “Special Feature’ page at my blog on the issue.

    I know that we all get inundated with information overload on such an issue that we may tend to tune out. My focus is to try and say it simply as possible and keep adding tidbits so that readers can get a snapshot of the current situation.

    Save the Internet, Liz. Let’s Do it!

    Reply

  2. Hi Martin,
    SmallOficeHerald sounds like a winner! I’m with you on that. I’m looking now for the pithy comments that say something compelling.

    We’ll at least keep the idea at the forefront.

    Liz

    Reply

  3. Thanks.

    Basically it’s gone from HomeOfficeVoice > SmallOfficeMedia > SmallOfficeHerald … and I’m going to stick with this one for the long term and build it into something B I G or fall flat on my facev trying…

    btw, I’ve done my blogtipping (I didn’t do you this time round, that would be too obvious), where’s yours ? 🙂

    Reply

  7. Congress has absolutely zero business getting involved in how the internet functions. Whether you “follow the money” as in the first excerpt above or simply see the absurdity of any proposed changes a la the toaster analogy, one thing is clear: the web should remain a free frontier for all.

    Reply

  9. I know that the effort is supposed to save the internet, but as far as I can tell government regulation only ruins and breaks things, especially when they are not broken. I say keep the government out of this one.

    Reply

  10. The real scoop on net neutrality is that it is not really a problem. What I mean is that no one is violating it. Not a single ISP, and none of them will. It would just be bad for business if they did.

    Reply

  11. I hear what you’re saying pkp646. The govt. intervention scares me too. I just don’t like the idea of ANYONE getting to pick. But what’s to do?

    Reply

  13. Stevens,

    Yes, it’s not a problem now … but there’s clear messages coming from the Telco’s that they want this – the proof of this and why it’s a real scoop is the blatant lobbying to exclude Net Neutrality.

    In their eyes it’s purely a business thing: we lay out and own the pipes and copper and now we want to sell access to it. And as always, the biggest bidder wins.

    No one’s saying we’ll be all wiped off the internet but I can easily see a scenario where access will be throttled say 30% and if you want full access here’s our prices … and tough luck if you can’t afford it.

    But that’s business and sometimes (and who ever like Gov intervention) Government has to step in.

    Reply

  14. Thanks Martin.

    What you say is so true. In their eyes it’s purely a business thing: we lay out and own the pipes and copper and now we want to sell access to it. And as always, the biggest bidder wins.

    Thanks for saying it so clearly. That is exactly my worry.

    Reply

  15. First of all, I think we should assuage ourselves of the notion that the Internet can be perfect. In order for it to move forward, companies must be able to profit from it, or our Internet experience will remain stagnant. Fortunately, as consumers, we have veto power over the means by which companies make money in a free market system. In a government regulated system, well, no dice.

    Reply

  16. I think most of us agree that folks need to make money to keep the pipes running. Personally, I don’t want any system that puts the power in the hands of too few.

    Reply

  17. Martin,

    The telcos’ goal (other than to maximize profit) isn’t to reduce quality for people who pay the standard rate, it’s to offer better quality for those willing to pay higher rates. The plan has never been to cut the current allocated bandwidth, and such an effort would never get past consumers. What’s the harm in a 30% differential between the highest and lowest service levels if the end result is a baseline 2-3 times as fast as today’s? If we allow the government to wrap its fingers around the internet, all we’ll do is stifle growth.

    Reply

  18. Hi Jeran,
    I have no love for big government. I have no love for AT&T either. I’ve had their “service” for three different homes and swore I never would again. What happens? I love SBC and AT&T buys them. Within minutes my bill is a problem. I already have $70 in dispute that’s been in dispute for 4 months. Their mistake–my problem.

    There is a reason I trust the telcos as little as I trust big goverment. I don’t want either to get to pick.

    Reply

  19. Jeran,

    Yes, but what’s stopping those able to pay higher rates wanting more? Will the Telco’s be able to handle the demand. If not, will the better quality be at the expense of the standard one?

    If Big Media Company A comes along and says I want this much access and I’m willing to pay top dollar, and if the telco can’t give it to them (yet) what will the Telco do? Ah, come back in 2-3 years when we’ll have access. No, they’ll simply use what they’ve got (at the expense of the normal user).

    2-3 times faster than today. Then that would be a no-brainer. We all win. But will this happen? And when?

    If we don’t get to this 2-3 times faster than today and the Telco’s can offer a better service to the highest bidder as early as next year all I can see is a split happening: We’ll get massive content influx from a few media companies and the small guys will be trailing behind.

    Now, no one wants Big Government meddling in business. But what other way is there to make sure we all get a fair go.

    Reply

  20. Martin,
    I agree it seems the only answer. Still Jeran’s right, it’s a damn scary one. I think they should put us in charge. That’s the only solution I like.

    Reply

  21. Yeah Liz,
    Let the inmates take over the aslyum 🙂

    Of course, Jeran is right. But only if it’s 2-3 times faster than today. But will we be paying 2-3 times more the access?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *