Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 9-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Politicians battle over network neutrality

Ben Scott, policy director of the media-oriented lobbying and outreach organization Free Press, said . . .

“Imagine what it looks like when you create a multitiered Internet – you create a fast quality of service for people who pay a lot of money,” he said. “Essentially you’re creating Internet that’s best for those who can pay the most.”

In a system without expanded infrastructure, Scott said, that would mean those who cannot pay the most would have a degraded quality of service.

It’s important to distinguish between consumer tiers and those that would be on the Internet itself, Scott said.

“We’re each buying different amounts of bandwidth, but once we pay our fee and get online, it’s the same quality of access,” he said. “No one decides which Web site goes fast, which goes slow.”

[ . . .]

Alok Gupta, department chairman and Carlson School of Management professor of Information and Decision Sciences, said services that are not free now can be provided for free should companies be able to charge for services that require a higher level of access.

“You can not only have more incentives for investment, but you can actually increase social welfare by providing multiple levels of access,” he said.

The real danger in this area is if media companies merge with infrastructure companies, he said.

Implementation of a multitiered system requires some thoughtfulness, Gupta said, as legislators cannot let companies do whatever they want.

“If the network slows down because of high level of activity, that is natural; but purposeful degradation of services should not be allowed,” he said. “That’s the real legislative issue. That’s something we need laws about which we don’t have right now – not that it should be illegal to provide differential services.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 9-14-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

New Report Skewers Telco Spin on Competition

Why has the United States fallen behind the rest of the world in accessible and affordable broadband service?

The answer, according to a report [PDF] released by Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, is marketplace failures wrought by phone and cable companies’ near monopoly control of last-mile broadband markets.

The 44-page report, Broadband Reality Check II, exposes the truth behind America’s digital decline: A marketplace controlled by the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast has left Americans with higher prices, slower speeds and no meaningful competition for high-speed Internet service.

It exposes the lie behind phone companies’ repeated claims that the U.S. has a diverse marketplace, with myriad broadband choices for the consumer.

It decisively skewers the notion — put forth by telco executives and their high-paid shills — that “fierce competition” precludes Net Neutrality protections.

[ . . . ]

Broadband Reality Check II also finds:

The 14 other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] nations saw higher overall net growth in broadband adoption than the United States from 2001 to 2005.

Consumers in other countries enjoy broadband connections that are far faster and cheaper than what is available here. U.S. consumers pay nearly twice as much as the Japanese for connections that are 20 times as slow.

U.S. broadband prices aren’t dropping: Cable modem prices are holding constant or rising, and DSL customers on average are getting less bandwidth per dollar than just a year ago.

The market share of “third platform” alternatives like satellite, wireless and broadband over powerline technologies has actually decreased over the past five years.

The report contradicts the rosy picture painted by the Federal Communications Commission, by exposing the agency’s failure to rein in broadband monopolies . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 6-04-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Tangled Web [via Daily Kos]

We follow the story of Blip.tv, an ambitious video-streaming startup. They’re fighting for a corner of the Internet marketplace in the midst of a battle over so-called ‘net neutrality’ — the idea that all Internet content and websites are given the same access to audiences and customers.

If telecommunication giants have their way, companies like Blip.tv might be forced to compete in a marketplace wherein firms with large coffers can buy access to greater bandwidth and faster Internet speeds, leaving sites who can’t afford to pay in the slow lane.

Craig Aaron of Free Press, a media watchdog group, says big telecom companies have declared open season on ‘Net neutrality.’ He’s afraid these companies will dictate how we use the Internet.

“I think one of the beauties of the Internet is that it’s been open to views across the political spectrum. And if you hand the control of the information so that some can be preferred over others, you’re going to be handing that control to the big media companies that already control our television, airwaves, radio, you name it,” Aaron says.

For their part, telecom companies argue that a fast lane on the Internet for those willing to pay will allow them to make a return on their multibillion-dollar investment in broadband infrastructure. At present, companies such as Verizon and AT&T only charge for access to the Internet, but make virtually no money from content.

Net Neutrality Is More Than Meets The Eye

What’s bewildering in the net neutrality debate is that both sides say they have the same goals – they want the Internet to maintain its usefulness, to keep maturing, and to continue to get better. At first glance, it would be easy to think that one side wants that done via government regulation and the other through the free market. But that’s really not the case. Network neutrality is a much more complex issue than “Big Business vs. Consumer Rights” or “Big Government vs. Free-market Competition”.

Realist View on Net Neutrality: Only the Lawyers Win

Ray Gifford offers a realist’s prognostication on the likely effects of network neutrality: only the lawyers win.

Not the end of the world if network neutrality laws pass, not the end of the world if they fail to pass. Only, if network neutrality becomes law, low latency high-speed service will be routed through “private networks” while ordinary traffic travels via the “public network” internet. The distinctions between the two will be somewhat arbitrary, but important to the law, and that is why lawyers win. Overall, a sensible if not too hopeful view.

Compare the calm Gifford tone to the more alarmist sounds of eBay CEO Meg Whitman (that’s her smiling face in the picture) in an email sent to members of the “eBay community”: . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE