Comments on: The Day Real Internet Freedom Died: Our Forbes Op-Ed on Net Neutrality Regulation

By: Que el portero marque tarjeta: Google Neutrality

Que el portero marque tarjeta: Google Neutrality — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:11:09 +0000

[...] El clamor del Times se enmarca dentro de un intento por crear una regulación extensiva, amplia y pulposa de la neutralidad. Limitada en un principio a las infraestructuras de telecomunicaciones (Net Neutrality y Wireless Net Neutrality) la neutralidad se cierne omnipresente para las demás capas de la Internet. Ahora nos encontramos con requerimientos de neutralidad en las búsquedas (Search Neutrality), neutralidad de los dispositivos (Device Neutrality), neutralidad de las aplicaciones (Application Neutrality) y así, se la empezará a invocar para las redes sociales, correo electrónico, mensajería instantánea, publicidad en línea, etc. (The Day Real Internet Freedom Died: Our Forbes Op-Ed on Net Neutrality Regulation) [...]

By: “The Rise and Fall of Information Empires” & Constant Growth of Regulation

Sun, 23 May 2010 20:12:16 +0000

[...] Anyway, despite its one-sidedness, the piece is fascinating, offering a well-researched summary of the growing cacophony of cries for regulatory intervention against Google, and also a suggestion of where they might lead in crafting a broader regulatory regime for online services beyond just Google. In short, the crusade against Google and the crusade for net neutrality (in which Google has, IMHO unwisely been a major player) are together leading us down in intellectual slippery slope that, as Adam and I have suggested, will result in “High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction” and the death of Real Internet Freedom. [...]

By: Celebrating 5,000 Posts on the Technology Liberation Front Since 2004!

Celebrating 5,000 Posts on the Technology Liberation Front Since 2004! — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:06:33 +0000

[...] Control of Internet Threatens Innovation: My FOXNews.com Op-Ed on Net Neutrality, Adam and my The Day Real Internet Freedom Died & Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction, and Steve [...]

By: Commentary: Rights of Providers Shouldn’t Outweigh Rights of Users | BroadbandBreakfast.com

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:52:11 +0000

[...] But sometimes hyperbole can exceed the reality of the situation. Yesterday, Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka, two senior fellows at the Progress and Freedom Foundation for whom I have the utmost respect as scholars, and confidence in as sources, published a widely circulated op-ed entitled “The Day Internet Freedom Died.” [...]

By: “Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language — Technology Liberation Front

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:29:52 +0000

[...] generalities” ending in “-y” Orwell would have denounced) would be the death of real Internet Freedom, which requires a strict “Separation of Web and [...]

By: Wireless Innovation is Alive & Well: Two New Reports Set the Record Straight — Technology Liberation Front

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:45:54 +0000

[...] smell of high-tech regulation is increasingly in the air these days and many lawmakers and activist groups now have the mobile marketplace in their [...]

By: My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge — Technology Liberation Front

My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge — Technology Liberation Front — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:26:29 +0000

[...] law for one layer of the Internet will be extended, sooner or later, to other layers. As Adam and I have warned, “the same rationale would apply equally to any circumstance in which access to a [...]

By: dm

dm — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:38 +0000

We've certainly seen non-neutral policies in the past --- AOL and its walled garden, for example. Sure, those don't necessarily survive long, but that doesn't keep the business model from reappearing and inconveniencing customers and potential customers. For example, viewed from a safe distance (so I could be mistaken), Facebook appears to be repeating some of that walled-garden mentality.

I can assure you that Verizon would love to pull the plug on the independent ISPs to whom it must give equal access to the last mile.

They probably won't, either, unless they serve a purpose.

True. However, the question is: whose purpose? The ISP's or the customer's? In the duopoly situation that most customers find themselves in --- phone company or cable company --- that can be an important question.

There simply is no evidence that "device" or "application" neutrality are universally superior to device or application non-neutrality from an innovation standpoint

It sounds as though someone needs to learn about this thing called "the Internet", and the role that open protocols and the end-to-end principle played in its development. No evidence, indeed.

By: dm

dm — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:22:38 +0000

By: Bret Swanson - Maximum Entropy » Blog Archive » Does Google Voice violate neutrality?

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:55:44 +0000

[...] ever closer to FCC regulation of web-based apps! Again, this is the point we have stressed here again and again and again and again when opposing Net neutrality mandates: If you open the door to [...]

By: brettglass

brettglass — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:09:34 +0000

You write, "Without network neutrality there would be no Google."

This is not true. No Internet provider has any interest in blocking search engines -- whether it is Google or Bing or Jeeves or any other.

In fact, Google's intent, in lobbying for regulation of the Internet, is to prevent another Google from arising to challenge it.

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:33:18 +0000

Is Apple's iPhone the End of Innovation? Hahn & Singer on Handset Exclusivity Fears...

In a week in which neutrality regulation is making a lot of news, I hope that Robert Hahn and Hal Singer's terrific new study, "Why the iPhone Won't Last Forever and What the Government Should Do to Promote its Successor"......

By: Is Apple’s iPhone the End of Innovation? Hahn & Singer on Handset Exclusivity Fears — Technology Liberation Front

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:09:40 +0000

[...] a week in which neutrality regulation is making a lot of news, I hope that Robert Hahn and Hal Singer’s terrific new study, [...]

By: Net Neutrality Regulation => Online Product/Service Definitions => Online Taxation — Technology Liberation Front

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:23:46 +0000

[...] Thierer and I have warned that neutrality regulation, once imposed on broadband providers, will extend to other Internet services wherever “gatekeepers” are alleged to control access [...]

By: Google Voice & the Slippery Slope of Net Neutrality Regulation — Technology Liberation Front

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:42:59 +0000

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:46:43 +0000

Government allows markets to thrive by defining property rights and enforcing voluntary arrangements. There simply is no evidence that “device” or “application” neutrality are universally superior to device or application non-neutrality from an innovation standpoint. The iPhone is a prime example of this, as we've discussed here in great detail. If non-neutral ISP business models — i.e. charging, say, Google for access to customers — made sense, we'd have seen such models emerge by now. They haven't, at least not in any systematic way. They probably won't, either, unless they serve a purpose.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:53:23 +0000

Steve, you are you conflating two very different kinds of "regulation."
1) Setting common standards and units
2) Prohibiting certain legitimate business practices

The former is simply a way of preventing businesses from deceiving consumers, or standardizing trade. It is "regulation" in the most literal sense: "making regular." But it is a FAR cry from dictating to someone what they can and can't do with their property (including communications networks) subject to appropriate disclosure.

If the complaint were simply that network owners weren't adequately disclosing to consumers that there certain traffic management techniques would be used that might result in faster or slower data transfers for them depending on the circumstances or application at issue, we could have a serious debate about just what those disclosures should be. In general, I'm all in favor of open disclosure but we certainly couldn't expect network operators to tell the 5% of their users who would consume 80% of their bandwidth how to circumvent legitimate traffic management practices intended to protect the remaining 95% of consumers.

As Richard Bennett has pointed out, if you ban such practices in the name of neutrality, networks will be forced to abandon all-you-can-eat pricing and move to some kind of tiered offering. There again some form of disclosure would be perfectly appropriate.

But we're talking about two very different kinds of regulation here.

By: Do Americans Really Want “Net Neutrality” Regulation? — Technology Liberation Front

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:34:16 +0000

[...] harm consumers, increase broadband prices, retard the heretofore-explosive growth of bandwidth, and dramatically increase government control over the Internet. Of course, the degree of public interest in a cause doesn’t actually tell us anything about [...]

By: Jayel Aheram

Jayel Aheram — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:14:56 +0000

If we are ever going to get Net Neutrality, we should start by getting rid of the FCC that had been stifling the growth of networks.

By: Jenkins on Net Neutrality & Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering — Technology Liberation Front

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:33:37 +0000

[...] the ‘Net,” which borrows a term that my friend Randy May coined long ago to describe what net neutrality regulation will ultimately accomplish. What I like best about the Jenkins essay was the way he exposed Free Press for their hypocrisy [...]

By: Links 23/09/2009: Big Win for GNU/Linux in Spain, Amarok 2.2 Now at RC1 | Boycott Novell

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:03:04 +0000

[...] The Day Real Internet Freedom Died: Our Forbes Op-Ed on Net Neutrality Regulation There was a time, not so long ago, when the term “Internet Freedom” actually meant what it implied: a cyberspace free from over-zealous legislators and bureaucrats. For a few brief, beautiful moments in the Internet’s history (from the mid-90s to the early 2000s), a majority of Netizens and cyber-policy pundits alike all rallied around the flag of “Hands Off the Net!” From censorship efforts, encryption controls, online taxes, privacy mandates and infrastructure regulations, there was a general consensus as to how much authority government should have over cyber-life and our cyber-liberties. Simply put, there was a “presumption of liberty” in all cyber-matters. [...]

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:31:45 +0000

Apple, Spotify & the Threat of FCC High-Tech Regulation...

Over at TechDirt, Mike Masnick has an interesting post asking "Why Did Apple Approve Spotify?" which builds on an AdAge column asking a similar question: "Did Apple Sacrifice ITunes With Latest Apps?" As the title of that AdAge piece suggests,......

By: Apple, Spotify & FCC Threat of High-Tech Regulation: How Did We Get Here Again? — Technology Liberation Front

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:06:50 +0000

[...] iTunes, or music streaming market in general! Seriously, have we gotten to the point now in our Bold New World of Neutrality Regulation that innovative high-tech companies must live in fear of constant regulatory intervention even when [...]

By: dm

dm — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:21:42 +0000

It's a shame that this bit is getting all the reactions, when the much better piece by Julian Sanchez just two posts down (“Net Neutrality and Architecture Avoidance”) goes unremarked.

By: iainthomson

iainthomson — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:45:01 +0000

What a shockingly naive piece of writing. I wonder if these two know anything about the internet and it's certainly not what I'd expect from a publication of this stature.

Using Google as an example was particularly dense. Without net neutrality there would be no Google - competing search technologies could buy faster response times despite having worse search algorithms and innovation would have been crushed. That's why Google is so strongly behind net neutrality.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:27:49 +0000

There are good regulations and there are bad regulations. There are good companies and there are bad companies. But endlessly repetitive assertions that regulation somehow squelches all innovation is simply wrong and misleading.

For example, when I go to the gas station a buy a gallon of gas, I will get a gallon of gas because of regulation. But that does not stop Toyota or Ford from being innovative and competitive. Lets take a look at our electric network, it works on 60Hz cycle. Because of this standard, we can buy a wide range of products that will work reliably when plugged in. Do you really think that we will get more innovation if some manufactures sell products that require 50Hz and others sell products that require 80HZ?

Apple with its rejection of Google's Voice on the iPhone is an example of private industry taking the initiative to squelch innovation. So it appears that we don't need government regulation to really squelch innovation. Private industry, it seems, is able to it without government help. Amazing!

By: dm

dm — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:52:48 +0000

So if the problem is insufficient competition between broadband networks, let's start getting the government out of the way!

There's a small matter of finding room on the poles for the wires. Wireless may help offset that, but then there's the problem of spectrum space, and you're back to a handful of providers, unless regulation keeps the circuits neutral and lets other ISPs rent time on them.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:34:34 +0000

You're absolutely right here, Bob, that government-created monopolies have limited broadband competition.

Government “franchise” licensing has proven lucrative for state and local governments (and sometimes officials) but has blocked new wireline entrants like fiber based on another fiction of scarcity—this time in publicly owned “rights of way.” Worse, not until December 2006 did the FCC finally act to allow telecom companies to begin offering video service. The local franchising roadblock had discouraged Verizon, AT&T and others from building fiber networks that could offer high-speed broadband (instead of just DSL). Finally, through central planning of spectrum use, the FCC has retarded the development of wireless broadband offerings that could serve fixed and mobile users, from high-speed cellular networks to satellite systems to ground-based technologies like Wi-Max.

But instead of seeking to break these chains on free enterprise, regulatory advocates blame markets for failing to provide “enough” competition—and propose more regulation as the solution.

So if the problem is insufficient competition between broadband networks, let's start getting the government out of the way!

By: Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Tuesday, 22-Sep-09 21:17:45 UTC - Identi.ca

Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Tuesday, 22-Sep-09 21:17:45 UTC - Identi.ca — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:18:02 +0000

[...] http://techliberation.com/2009/09/22/the-day-real-internet-freedom-died-our-forbes-op-ed-on-net-neu... a few seconds ago from Gwibber [...]

By: bobexample

bobexample — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:46:09 +0000

What total non-sense this is not a First Amendment issue, but a freedom to compete issue.

The cable companies were provided concessions, for the public good, to provide Internet services--not to impinged the 1st amendment rights of others by blocking their content.

The telcos were GIVEN their networks, for the public good to provide Internet services--not to impinged the 1st amendment rights of others by blocking their content.

Freedom of speech for all not just the well connected!