Comments on: The Chicken Littles of Broadband

By: Jim_Lakely

Jim_Lakely — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:02:30 +0000

The irony, James, is that when we say that net neutrality rules will bring about the ruination of the Internet that the left long and wrongly predicted if the free market was allowed to flourish, WE'RE the ones called "alarmist."

But we are not Chicken Littles. We speak the truth.

By: Jim_Lakely

Jim_Lakely — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:02:30 +0000

By: mwendy

mwendy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:37:12 +0000

We all benefit from multiple public policies - we are not enslaved or confiscated as a result.

They serve the public by taking risk and rolling out those pipes that, well, the companies who employ your advocacy could roll out themselves but choose instead to freeload upon.

I see your point, however. You're interested in the grand re-distribution. Short-sighted stuff, dude. Who's going to come to develop the next generation of innovation when elites like you want to expropriate others' hard-earned risk?

No one.

Thankfully,the pipes aren't community property - still. That's why they work.

By: chesterj1

chesterj1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:39:33 +0000

They may be private carriers, but they have benefited from multiple public policies (esp. at FCC). Phone and cable broadband network access companies must serve the larger public interest. If they don't desire to operate their monopolistically-secured broadband pipelines under an open Internet regime, they should divest. The real truth here is that they wish to extend to the digital medium the same dominance/control they have had for decades with either voice or multichannel programming. And the Internet is also the public square–not the grocer. The pipes are community property.

By: mwendy

mwendy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:56:18 +0000

You're asking for the Internet equivalent of the now defunct "fin-syn" rules, all without the public interest hook of the grant of airwaves. It's a regulatory non-sequitur, of course. They won't work in this context.

Inarguably, self-interest, which you seem to decry, has advanced the Internet. That's how those fat pipes (filled with content) made it out there in the first place. Unregulated risk that some shouldered.

They own the grocery store. Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide what gets stocked? Go build your own grocery store, Jeff.

By: chesterj1

chesterj1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:31:16 +0000

We aren't saying it would `close the Internet.' We are discussing a business model which reverses Internet 'gravity' and where favored (big $) apps and interests are placed always at the head of the digital que. It's bring the shelf slotting system of grocery stores to the online world. There are other related factors, of course, such as paid search and related placements. But advancing some services over others because the cable/telco landlord received extra payments helps transform the Internet into something that doesn't advance freedom online.

By: chesterj1

chesterj1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:18:17 +0000

Can I suggest that when you take the industry to the Supreme Court (the Brand X case), flood the FCC and Congress with tens of thousands of emails and letters, file complaints at the FCC, have laws introduced in Congress to enact network neutrality, that is considerable political pressure. As I mentioned, if you follow developments for the cable and phone broadband industry, control over flow of content for monetization purposes (ads, programming) is at the core of the technology and business model. Such a scheme would undermine competition–let alone privacy. It's only been extraordinary pressure–and the fear of a public revolt–that has kept both cable and telcos from deploying their plans.

By: WIlbur

WIlbur — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:15:31 +0000

Theorizing about counterfactuals is a tiresome and usually fruitless chore. I think we'd be better off just with the continued threat of regulation, but not any actual regulation. Let some scary bills be drafted with some close votes - and then just repeat until technology makes the debate pointless.

If broadband providers don't sense at least some fear in the short-term, they'll be tempted to divide the service they provide with some labels to which they can attach dollar signs. Once the public becomes accustomed to labels that cost money, industry will sell those labels for as long as they can - even if costs become negligible. For example, don't expect cell carriers to adopt a flat price for both voice and text services when the public is already accustomed to paying for each label.

For those who thing paying by the bit is awesome, try using the net in countries where such pricing is already in place. Users gather is forums exchanging tips on how to best configure their browsers to avoid displaying even the tiniest of images. Having any images in a forum post will be you banned instantly. There is a constant drive for less rich content and scripts that automate downloads in the middle of the night. Neighbors often split downloading and then hand-carry their exchanges to each other.

By: dm

dm — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:19:50 +0000

These things don't happen in a vacuum. It's possible that the sky hasn't fallen because the predictions motivated people to push back against the ill-effects, creating a compromise --- Comcast coming clean on their Bittorrent throttling is a good example, and we shouldn't forget the caution that fear of regulation might induce in those set on tearing the sky down --- one man's chilling effect is another man's finger in the dike. Hard to say.

By: dm

dm — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:54:02 +0000

A big part of the “Why” comes from the fact that they were so far behind on wired phone penetration — they skipped generation of technology. Or, the mobile technologies didn't have to compete with an installed wired technology.

I'm not sure why they might be so far ahead in broadband — though I suspect the fact that having 25 (Japan) to 40 (Korea) percent of your population living in a single metropolitan area has something to do with it — as may the fact that it's built from the ground-up on new technologies which don't have to compete for customers or pole-space with an existing copper telephone infrastructure.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:56:08 +0000

You are correct to say that we don't need the government to create new innovative products. However, you neglect the fact that the companies that do this creation can also be very disingenuous in how their custoemers are treated, take a look at Comcast and Sprint. TechDirt reports Speakeasy The Latest VoIP Provider To Block Certain Calls . True you don't have to use Comcast, Sprint, or Speakeasy. But, in the interests of equity, shouldn't you also question improper business tactics of private industry?

You also need to ask the question of whether the so-called "success" of private industry in rolling out these new innovative products is real or simply an illusion. Based on some of what I have read (I have not done much research into this area) it appears that our so-called free market success of our "advanced" cellphones is mostly illusion. The New York Times wrote: Why Japan’s Cellphones Haven’t Gone Global. The Times quoted Gerhard Fasol, president of the Tokyo-based IT consulting firm, Eurotechnology Japan., as saying "Japan is years ahead in any innovation. But it hasn’t been able to get business out of it.". While Japan may not have gotten much business out of it, it actually raises a very important issue that has not be discussed here. Why is Japan ahead? How does Japanese regulation compare to ours?

Now, I am not going to claim that regulation promotes innovation, but based on my informal reading many of the Asian countries are ahead of us concerning cell phones and internet penetration. If that is true, the unexplored question: Why??????????

By: mwendy

mwendy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:24:37 +0000

Jeff, it's not in their interest to close the Internet. I challenge you to be denied any of the Net Neutrality four freedoms right now. You know full well that they're guidlines, with virtually no weight in law. Inter-modal competition has played a vital role in this – more than you care to give credit.

By: jamesgattuso

jamesgattuso — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:16:11 +0000

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. For ten years we've been hearing that unless the government steps in there will be disaster. But at the same time “advocacy, legal and press work” was sufficient to head off trouble? Either the threat was not as grave as advertised, or the public response — without regulation — was more effective at keeping competitors in line than claimed. I think it was a little bit of both. And both are the signs of a functioning market, not a failed one.

Yes, the threat of regulation did have some effect, but I think largely in tiering and a few other limited cases. Given the strength of the claimed market abuse onslaught, and the variety of ways network owners were said to be able to control content, that's not an adquate explanation for why the predicted horrors did not come to pass.

By: jim777kelly

jim777kelly — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:45:46 +0000

Right…. We are from the government and we are here to help! It's the marketplace–of internet service and of ideas–that has driven the success of modern communication. We didn't need government to create Skype, Twitter or iPhone. But, it will be the government that will make all of this, and more, unavailable to the general public.

By: chesterj1

chesterj1 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:48:21 +0000

Mr. Gattuso appears to have suddenly become naive when it comes to public policy issues. He should be informing his readers that it is only because of the advocacy, legal, and press work since the late 1990's by consumer groups that the cable and telephone companies have not been able to deploy their business model designed to turn the open Internet into a form of monopolistic cable TV. This threat is quite real, as anyone who spends time following the industry knows. That's why FCC action is required.