« Robot archaeology | Main | Alaa's release »

Kessler: No one to root for in the net neutrality debate...

The more I dig into the net neutrality debate, the more I get the impression that nobody knows what the *&%$# they're talking about, and that applies to my friends on the – I almost said on the consumers' side of the debate, but how can I use the c-word when I've also been preaching the end of the consumer with Web 2.xyz, where everybody is both/neither consumer and/nor producer. But you know what I mean: there are megacorporate telcos trying to save their skins by adopting a model that's new to them, but old news to the cable television industry, which has been piping (slightly pixellated) programming over digital networks for some time now. And there are grassroots tech.activists who want to keep the Internet safe for "the rest of us," so that bloggers will have the bandwidth to share their rants and youtubers will have bandwidth to share their funniest home videos.

I was feeling out of place in all this, because I know the incumbent telcos are going to get it wrong. Their day is over, and they should take a graceful exit, embrace extinction, stop fighting for life and profit. (But they won't, human nature being what it is; they'll fight, and they won't fight fair. They won't compete on a level playing field; they'll leverage their dominance and their legislative connections to win as much as they can as long as the can.

Is legislation the answer? I hear a lot of people say that "we've lost" because we didn't get legislation to ensure something called net neutrality, but I'm not sure such a thing exists, or that it's inherently a good thing. I think we all agree that we don't want the Internet to become another form of cable television; that we want a symmetrical high speed Internet, meaning you can upload as fast as you can download. All kinds of innovation will emerge from a network like that, but existing models will probably suffer. Multimedia content will be ported all over the place, shared and also sold, but the suits that have traditionally taken most of the profits will be selling their homes and working at Walmart. I'm pretty sure they'll fight to prevent that. But I digress – I was saying we can all agree that we want the Internet to be free and open, with low barriers to entry and umpty-tons of bandwidth to spare. But "neutrality" might be stifling in its own way, and legislation is probably not the best way to "save the Internet," if we can help it. And maybe we can't, considering the power of the telco monopoly-that-wouldn't-die, but I hate to see all focus on legislation and no thinking outside that box.

But I don't mean to rant. Instead, I wanted to post a pointer to a swell piece by Andy Kessler in Weekly Standard (and thanks to Jim Thompson for the link). The article's called "Give Me Bandwidth...No one to root for in the net neutrality debate," and it comforted me to know that someone else is looking for another path. Here's an excerpt:

But the answer is not regulations imposing net neutrality. You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks--like requiring emergency 911 service--to try to kill off free Internet telephone services such as Skype. And who knows what else? Network neutrality won't be the laissez-faire sandbox its supporters think, but more like used kitty litter. We all know that regulations beget more lobbyists. I'd rather let the market sort these things out.

But what market? Phone lines, cable, and cellular--i.e., the means of Internet access--are all regulated; their operators are quasi-monopolies. Even if you end the monopolies, the incumbents have the advantage of a huge head start. Broadcasters own valuable spectrum and feed us cretinous shows like Wife Swap and The Bachelor. Cable has a lock on our homes via local franchise bribes, er, fees, so we get Lifetime and Animal Planet that no one watches. Satellite TV is content to charge just a hair under cable's pricing umbrella. For phone companies, too much Internet bandwidth would threaten their bread and butter--overpriced $25 per month (it's worth no more than $1) phone service and hot
innovations like call waiting.

So how do we fix this? Are we stuck in telco hell? Silicon Valley can ignite a political arms race and spend more on lobbyists, but why play an old man's game? Instead, these webbies should get creative, change the rules. Bam-Bam, not Barney Rubble is the future. Take the telcos and cable companies out at the knees.

Here's an idea: Start screaming like a madman and using four letter words--like K-E-L-O. And fancier words like "eminent domain." I know, I know. This sounds wrong. These are privately owned wires hanging on poles. But so what? The government-mandated owners have been neglecting them for years--we are left with slums in need of redevelopment. Horse-drawn trolleys ruled cities, too, but had to be destroyed to make way for progress. How do we rip the telco's trolley tracks out and enable something modern and real competition?

Bruce is a real muckraker; here's some of the info he includes in the book...

1) FACT: Customers paid the phone companies billions of dollars per state in 'extra fees' for open, ubiquitous, fiber optic, 45 mbps, high-definition video, 500+ channel service (in both directions) that was never delivered. About $2000 per household. Where's all the money? What happened to the networks? Should we trust these companies to do anything different now? Here's a summary from Harvard's Nieman Watchdog Project, "Where's that broadband fiber-optic access?".

This is NOT history. Verizon, New Jersey is supposed to have the entire state wired
with 45Mbps to the home (in both directions), by 2010. - Customers have been
paying for it since 1993.
http://www.newnetworks.com/OpportunityNewJerseyFiber.htm


2) Verizon's FiOS, and AT&T's Lightspeed are inferior, crippled services that
can't compete globally today and may never be fully deployed. America is
16th in broadband now, and it will get worse with the Bell companies' plans.

Compare the speed and price of FiOS and DSL with Asia.
http://www.newnetworks.com/fiosvsasia.htm

Read: "Verizon's FiOS, AT&T's Lightspeed - The Rise of the Crippled Networks"
http://www.newnetworks.com/fioslightspeed.htm

Do we really want these companies in control of our Digital Future? Is it
really $40 bucks for 100 Mbps bi-directional broadband in Asia?

3) Customers continue to be charged a de facto "Broadband Tax" for FiOS and
Lightspeed. --- Ed Whitacre of AT&T said that Lightspeed budgets are coming
directly out of existing local service budgets.

Why am I paying this hidden tax for something I may never get or want?

4) FCC-Bad Data Harmed the Economy. Broadband Scandal contains hundreds of
documents that were omitted by the FCC in their broadband analysis. Didn't
the GAO find flaws in the FCC's broadband data? How much worse are the real
facts?

Here's Teletruth's letter to Chairman Martin, outlining how bad data created
bad broadband laws and harmed the entire independent Internet industry.
http://www.newnetworks.com/TeletruthBroadbandDQAmartin.htm

How bad are the data? The FCC and the Senate bill defines broadband as 200K
in one direction --- that's 500 times slower than what Asian companies deliver
today for the same price. - We can't compete globally with this broadband
future.

5) AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth want to charge Google and others more money
for the same service and block where I can go. If we paid extra fees for
open, competitive networks, what right do they have to charge more or block
services?

6) Out of Control Universal Service Slush Fund. This Senate Bill would almost
double this TAX because they want to put it on your local and toll calls, broadband
and VOIP services, besides the current cell phone and long distance calls.
Worse, it's now mostly a Corporate Subsidy, given to wealthy phone companies
with no audits. .

Here's Teletruth's summary of just how bad the USF charge has become. We're
for Universal Service, but not being over-taxed.
http://www.newnetworks.com/universalservicefundsummary.htm

Shouldn't Congress audit the USF and stop giving corporate pork subsidies
before adding new taxes?

Solution: The Senate should conduct hearings about these issues before it
votes on any new financial concessions - Follow the Money, the failed broadband
deployments, and compare the US to the rest of the world.

jon posted this at 3:11 PM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

 Subscribe to RSS feed for Weblogsky