I’ve worked for a startup ISP in the early 1990s, one of the largest webhosting companies, and an Internet company acquired by a 100-year-old telco acquired by a next-gen global fiber network telco. The acquisition of the nimble ISP by the 100-year-old telco was an incredibly painful process, because of the sheer volumes of red tape and bureaucracy imposed on the telco side. We got rid of much of that by shedding the local telco component of the business, but if the Internet business acquires that level of bureaucracy and control from the FCC, I don’t think I could stand to work in this business.

I think you misread the bill and the history of regulation under examination. I also think you unfortunately trivialize important values, such as public interest programming. (Am I bitter toward Comcast that Philadelphia is easily the largest city in the US without a public access TV station? Not at all…) Further, your other post implying that we can whip up a frenzy whenever we want is, well, nonresponsive to my first response to Felten, and certainly nonresponsive to Jones and Baumgartner. Finally, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of new entrants to compete. In the broadband market, I think the first mover advantage and the economics of sunk costs are going to be insurmountable in nearly all US communities.

All the same, I’ve already spent entirely too much time blogging this issue, and I hereby bow out of the blog debate. But Tim, please do read this article: Opening Bottlenecks.

Final revisions are not due for almost a month, and your feedback would be very much appreciated.

OK, I’ll concede that post was perfunctory. You’re clearly right that it’s easier to attach network neutrality provisions to an existing bill than to start a new bill from scratch, so in that sense the telecom bill is a train leaving the station, and there’s an argument that we should hop on while we have the chance.

But I don’t think it’s as difficult as you make it out to be to spur Congressional action in cases like this. Congress does step in to override regulatory and court decisions that spark public outrage: look at the Congressional actions on media ownership regs and the “do not call” list.

In any event, I’ve printed out your paper and placed it near the top of my “to read” list. Thanks for the civil discussion.

I think you misread the bill and the history of regulation under examination. I also think you unfortunately trivialize important values, such as public interest programming. (Am I bitter toward Comcast that Philadelphia is easily the largest city in the US without a public access TV station? Not at all…) Further, your other post implying that we can whip up a frenzy whenever we want is, well, nonresponsive to my first response to Felten, and certainly nonresponsive to Jones and Baumgartner. Finally, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of new entrants to compete. In the broadband market, I think the first mover advantage and the economics of sunk costs are going to be insurmountable in nearly all US communities.

All the same, I’ve already spent entirely too much time blogging this issue, and I hereby bow out of the blog debate. But Tim, please do read this article: Opening Bottlenecks.

Final revisions are not due for almost a month, and your feedback would be very much appreciated.