Sunday - June 18, 2006

Net Neutrality

I have not been faced with such an odious choice since the Sixth Grade when I was faced with two ugly girls who both had crushes on me. This was long before I got old, overweight, long in the tooth and slightly gray-haired. I hope they both found husbands worthy of their devotion. Nevertheless, I am faced with a similar choice today and the two gals are extremely ugly ... in fact they’re both FUGLY. I’m referring to the current kerfuffle over “Net Neutrality”.

First, let me introduce the two “gals”. On one side we have Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, Disney, Amazon, and Apple. This group is known as the CBUI (Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators). On the other side we have the Bell telephone companies, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter and all the major access providers. I shall refer to them heretofore as the APG (Access Providers Group).

Second, let me explain in simple terms what the two “gals” really want.

• The CBUI group wants “net neutrality” as they call it. This is a term that is confusing to a lot of people so The Skipper will try to explain it for you. The term is used to describe a socialist approach to the internet - one for all and all for one. Everybody has equal access to everything. The internet should be non-discriminatory and everyone gets an equal slice of the bandwidth pie. All internet packets are equal and no one should have to pay more for a particular type of content. The CBUI wants to keep the internet “neutral” by (are you ready for this?) getting Congress to pass laws regulating and mandating this one size fits all approach.


• The Access Providers Group is crying “foul” and saying that we need a more capitalistic approach to the internet. They want to charge different prices for different content being pushed across the pipes - and they want Congress to mind its own business and stay out of the internet. They say they need to be able to charge more for things like streaming video, high-definition movies and other similar content from companies like ... you guessed it ... the CBUI group. The APG says they need to let the internet function as a free market so they can offer different pricing models and can thereby afford to upgrade their pipes. The charges would be mainly paid by the content providers in the CBUI, thus their resistance.

Now, you may be asking yourself what this means to you. Let me add a little more background information first. Currently, even though we invented the darned internet ...

… the United States is 16th in the world in broadband use (behind Liechtenstein!) with East Timor catching up fast. The French may burn Citroëns, but they get 10 megabits for 10 euros--50 times your “fast” Internet access for half the price. That’s just not right.[1]

What the CBUI really fears though is that the APG folks will deny access to certain providers or just limit certain content, thereby depriving them of unfettered access to your home computer. The problem I have with this “fear” is that it just won’t wash in a free market. If Charter refuses to give me access to Disney’s latest movies, I’ll drop them like a hot potato and sign up with another access provider. That’s how a free market really works - we have a choice.

Consumers will consider some restrictions, such as a prohibition on the release of viruses on a broadband network, trivial and entirely acceptable. Other restrictions, such as a restriction on access to the website of a competitor or a specific advertiser, will be considered an intolerable restraint by many. But the important question here is whether any of this should be considered illegal discrimination and prohibited by law.

Must regulators adopt regulations governing the underlying infrastructure of broadband networks or the overall architecture of the Internet to ensure that “openness,” “neutrality,” and the “end-to-end” character of the Internet are preserved? And what would the impact of such regulations be in terms of the economic incentives for current and future broadband operators to innovate and invest in expensive new networks? Do the property rights of network owners come into play here? Do high-tech network operators even have property rights in this case?[2]

Are you sufficiently confused yet? I’ve worked in Information Technology for twenty-five years and have watched the network grow from ARPANET to the INTERNET (and Al Gore had absolutely nothing to do with it). My access speeds have gone from 300 bps to 3Mbps (bps - bits per second for those of you who aren’t geeks). Prices have gone down considerably. In 1982, I was paying Compuserve $6.95 per hour for a 300 bps dial-up connection - today I pay Charter Communications $43.00 per month for 3Mbps broadband.

So where does that leave us? Well, all I can do is give you my opinion. Personally, I’ll take the ugly APG “gal”. I have many reasons for taking their side in this: (1) the CBUI wants government to regulate “net neutrality” and I don’t like the government sticking its nose in business any more than it absolutely has to; (2) I believe the free market will keep the APG folks under control like it has done for the last twenty years as evidenced by the steep drop in access prices quoted above; (3) finally, the deciding factor for me is the fact that MOVEON.ORG is backing the CBUI group. So there! Here are links to the two opposing sides if you want more information ....

• The Access Providers: Hands Off The Internet website. (also see ad in right sidebar)


• The CBUI Official Web site.

References:

[1] The Weekly Standard: “Give Me Bandwidth”

[2] The Cato Institute: “Net Neutrality” - Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/18/2006 at 11:41 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner