Archive for the 'Net Neutrality' category

Net Neutrality: A Uniquely American Problem?

Mar 26 2007 Published by under Congress, Government, Legislation, Net Neutrality, The Internet

An interesting article in The Register today paints the Net Neutrality debate as a uniquely American phenomenon.

What emerged from the sessions is that ‘Neutrality’ is one of those incomprehensible American phenomenons, from which we’ve mercifully escaped. Your reporter was one of those invited to give a briefing – having reported on the issue from both sides of the pond – and said as much. But in the expectation that this would be the heretic view, rather than the near unanimous consensus opinion.

Summing up, [former UK trade minister Alun] Michael described the clamour for pre-emptive technical legislation as “extreme… unattractive and impractical”.

It was, he said, “an answer to problems we don’t have, using a philosophy we don’t share”.

That’s pretty much the same problem a growing number of people in the US have with it. There is no evidence that this is an issue. The one instance of anything in the US approaching a violation – also known as Madison River – was dealt with. Madison River paid a fine, agreed not to block VoIP traffic, and moved on.

That hasn’t stopped proponents from advocating for legislation in anticipation of there someday being a reason for it. It is not a sound basis for policy. The UK appears to recognize that. The truly interesting point in The Register article is buried.

[T]he UK doesn’t have such as ancient cruft as the US distinction between an information provider and a telephony provider.

They see this distinction as one of the principle problems. Since the Brand X decision and subsequent deregulation of DSL, NN proponents have pointed to that distinction as particularly problematic, while ignoring one of the specific contradictions in their argument – that distinction is the unintended consequence of applying a regulatory framework based upon a specific technology and then trying to adapt it to different technologies.

Net Neutrality attempts to do just that. Net Neutrality assumes that the technology and business models underlying the Net will not fundamentally change – therefore it’s ok to establish a regulatory regime based on what we know today, and what we assume we’ll still know tomorrow. In the absence of a specific problem, legislating a static solution for continually shifting technologies is a bad idea.

No responses yet

The Internet Is Not A Cloud

Mar 16 2007 Published by under Net Neutrality, Technology, The Internet

The Fiber To The Home Council has put together an interesting video to spell out the problems with Net Neutrality regulation. Beyond the net neutrality issue, however, it’s also a very good explanation of how the Internet works, and the problems with infrastructure development and capacity. If you are interested in understanding the difficulties facing telecom providers and the increasing role of managed networks, it really is worth taking a look.

If you’d like to see the larger version, check it out on YouTube here

No responses yet

Save Teh Internet

Mar 07 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Net Neutrality, The Internet

One of the most common typographical mistakes made on a keyboard is the dyslexic “the” also known as “teh”. It’s so common that Microsoft Word automatically corrects it. The practical impact of this typo leads to an odd reality in Internet marketing. If you’re going to have a domain name like “SaveTheInternet.com” you should also point the domain name “SaveTehInternet.com to the same location.

Well, they didn’t. So somebody put up a parody website to mock the SaveTheInternet guys. The parody features an amusing (if not altogether too long) video of a guy named Dwight making fun of the ‘the-whole-world-should-be-free-to-me’ crowd.

Despite having been on the receiving end of a staggering number of sites parodying the Bush campaign, I’m actually pleased to see this. It’s a creative way to chip away at the Net Neutrality guys and their fallacious arguments.

2 responses so far

Maryland’s Net Neutrality Bill

Feb 15 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Congress, Government, Legislation, Net Neutrality, The Internet

Matt Stoller over at MyDD has a post about a new Net Neutrality bill that was introduced in Maryland.

Owning state legislatures has been a secret strategy for corporate elites for years, and our focus on a Federal level and the courts has crippled us in understanding what is really possible when progressives step up on a state level. But that’s where change really happens.

The trouble with this is it ignores two simple facts – 1) Democrats – of which Matt is one – have traditionally believed in a strong central government with weaker subservient state governments and 2) Republicans (and by extension businesses) have usually operated at the state level on issues that make sense to legislate locally.

This becomes important when you start to talk about issues like Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is like interstate commerce. If you legislate interstate commerce, you have to do it at the federal level. That was one of the lessons the US earned early on. Before there was a New Deal, and before there was a Great Society, there was the Interstate Commerce Commission and recognition that goods traveling between states needed something better than state level oversight.

Net Neutrality is an interstate issue. Introducing net neutrality legislation at the state level is a terrible idea that ignores the fact most issues regulated at the state level are regulated there because it doesn’t fundamentally matter whether there is a patchwork of laws governing them.

For instance, violent crime can be regulated at the state level because it doesn’t matter if there is a difference in sentencing from one state to another. If an armed robber gets a mandatory sentence of eight years in one state and ten years in another, that’s not going to change the way the world works.

Introducing Net Neutrality legislation on a state-by-state basis, on the other hand, would be catastrophic if he laws were upheld in the courts (which is unlikely), but more likely will serve only to clog the courts and force a Washington solution.

Since the basis of the Internet is a series of interconnected networks that move data around the country or around the world in a millisecond, having to build networks capable of keeping track of the various legal requirements would be the worst government idea since the tax code.

I don’t believe Matt has had a political awakening and has become such a radical Republican that he feels there is no place for the federal government in anything. I suspect his advancement of state level NN regs is intended to junk up the works. If every state had a different law for regulating Net Neutrality, the federal government would be forced into the equation and would have to regulate the Internet.

That’s what happened with Interstate Commerce to force the creation of the ICC. States had passed myriad laws that the Supreme Court struck down and Congress was forced to act.

I suspect the proponents of NN are pushing laws around the country to force federal action – that and to obfuscate the real issue. The real issue is Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, since no example of the illicit deeds alleged by content providers has actually occurred.

(Disclaimer: While I work for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, this post should in no way be construed as an official position of the Association. Thoughts in this space are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer.)

No responses yet

Net Neutrality, ESPN 360, and Retransmission Consent

Feb 15 2007 Published by under Congress, Government, Legislation, Net Neutrality, The Internet

One of the interesting things that has been lost in the net neutrality debate is the case of ESPN360. It has been covered by some, but received little media attention. When paired with the ongoing conflicts over retransmission consent, it really does paint a picture of the good intentions of government going horribly awry.

In the Net Neutrality debate, the content providers allege that the cable and telephone companies will block access to their sites unless they pay the access providers. That theory is what drives the mania around the issue. People fret that, “I won’t be able to access Amazon.com if my ISP has a deal with Barnes & Noble.”

What it indicates, however, is a shortsightedness on the part of content providers to assume that there is only one business model for making money. For Google, that model is ‘give things away to customers, and charge anyone wanting to reach those customers for advertising’.

What would happen if Google, with its incredible market share, went to the ISPs and said, “If you want your customers to have access to Google, YouTube, etc, then you have to pay us. Otherwise, we’ll block incoming requests from your customers.” It’s the exact opposite of what proponents of NN are alleging will happen.

Well, guess what. It’s happening.

ESPN360 is a content service provided by ESPN networks via the Net. ESPN has told major ISPs that they have to pay to give customers access. Verizon has agreed and is paying the fee. Comcast is not.

The ESPN360 effort should raise new doubts about heaping new rules on access providers and assuming they have all the power. There is clear evidence that content providers have power as well.

If you question that, look at the other big debate taking place in telecommunications. There have been a series of recent skirmishes over retransmission consent (or retrans, for short). For those unfamiliar with the term, retrans refers to the agreements that allow cable and satellite systems to retransmit the signals of programmers and broadcasters. The systems pay a price for that right.

The trouble, at least in some recent cases, is the conflict that creates with a government mandate known as must-carry. Congress forced cable systems to carry the primary signals of the broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBC) under the theory that the free, over-the-air programming serves a vital public interest. Under the terms of must-carry, there were no mandated cash payments between systems and the broadcasters.

Recently, some broadcasters have decided there is a value to their programming and have begun to demand payment for their programing. This puts the government in an odd position. Given the shrinking viewership of broadcast television, it is entirely possible that they would eventually have no audience. Due to the government intrusion into the process, however, cable operators face a mandate to carry these stations, and now are forced to pay for them, too.

Under a net neutrality regime, ISPs could face a similar situation. The government may create a mandate to allow access to all content, and leave open a business model for content providers to demand payment. If Google, Amazon and eBay begin to charge ISPs for access, and the cable companies have no recourse to experiment with other business models, we could, in ten years, be looking at the same situation with the Internet that we’re currently seeing with retrans.

(Disclaimer: While I work for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, this post should in no way be construed as an official position of the Association. Thoughts in this space are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer.)

2 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »