Author: john

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has completed their draft on changes to telecommunication law, and perhaps no surprise, there is nothing in the text which could be understood to prevent providers from tiering service. (C Net, as always, has an article which does an excellent job of explaining neutrality and the various arguments).

Numerous scholars and net companies have spoken out in favor of neutrality principles, and now even one of the Net’s founders is sharing his views (see: Battle for the Web). Tim Berners-Lee went on record as saying, “The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it’s more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. … I’m very concerned.” Larry Lessig is also pointing out that the move away from neutrality is a backwards move towards asking government to help dictate the structure of the net. However, ArsTechnica is stating that the issue of network neutrality is “not dead yet.”

What it all comes down to is the idea that government can exist to enhance civic life and commerce through subsidizing the creation of a commons. The creation of the postal system, roadways, regulation of the Bell telephone monopoly, and the gift of the DOD’s DARPA-NET are all examples of this. In each case, a content neutral network was created with help from the government to create something that everyone (business and individuals) has enormously benefited from.
Consumers are going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades no matter which way things go. Why should we sacrifice what so many believe to be a good thing when the outcome is the same?

It turns out that it’s all about competition after all. C Net’s latest story about the testimony of the “broadband giants” shows that the telecos are interested in getting into the video business, and they do not want to have to open up their large future video pipes to the whole net or potentially slow down their own signal. Essentially, they’re arguing that the would like to create their own virtual private network, and allow others to use it at a price.

They should be free to build their own network for private use (so that it would be much like getting two separate signals for cable and Internet), but there’s no reason why this desire has to get mixed up with the Internet. When seen this way, there really would be no “free rider” problem because only their own content would be allowed through this separate network. When customers start complaining that the regular Internet speeds are too slow–then maybe things will open up.

FCC chair Kevin Martin chimed in with his take on the Internet network neutrality issue:

“We need to make sure we have a regulatory environment (in which network operators) can invest in the network and can recoup their costs,”

The question for Mr. Martin is: why must we throw out the baby with the bathwater? The neutral network has done wonders for spawning innovative use and competition between all sorts of web companies. Taking away network neutrality will essentially lock in the benefit to entities which can afford the increased access speeds.

Martin is already advocating for some kind of “regulatory environment,” so why must it be non-neutral? If driving network investment is the concern, certainly some kind of system to subsidize expansion could serve the same purpose while still maintaining neutrality. While this would be outside the FCC’s scope, Congress has the incredible chance for maintaining and even enhancing our great commons which is the Internet.

Perhaps Martin can find this point somewhere in his somewhat recent (2/10/06) comment on net video competition:

Given all of the benefits that additional competition offers for consumers,
we will continue to closely monitor the progress of all new entrants and
seek to eliminate any unreasonable barriers to entry and to address other
issues that we find impede such progress. [emphasis mine]

Senator Stevens of Alaska held a hearing today about Internet network neutrality evidentally gave the idea a “lukewarm” reception. Is it any wonder? Looking at who was present at the meeting, there is already a clear bias towards the interest of telecommunications corporations. Here’s the witness list:

Mr. Aryeh B. Bourkoff Managing Director, Media – Cable & Satellite, Entertainment Equity & Fixed Income, UBS Investment Research
Mr. Kevin M. Moore Wireline Telecom Analyst, Managing Director, Wachovia Securities
Mr. Craig E. Moffett Vice President and Senior Analyst, U.S. Cable and Satellite, Broadcasting
Mr. Luke T. Szymczak Vice President, JP Morgan Asset Managemen

Take a look at the video archive, but do it before the telecos charge the government more money to stream it! I won’t get into the reasons why net neutrality is a good thing at the moment, but this is certainly an issue to watch.