Esther Dyson: Release 0.9: Net neutrality (yet another take)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: February 4, 2007 1:09:32 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Esther Dyson: Release 0.9: Net neutrality (yet  
another take)
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

Release 0.9: Net neutrality (yet another take)
[for tech nuts only]

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-dyson/release-09-net- 
neutrali_b_40384.html>

I've been thinking a lot about net neutrality, including Dave  
Farber's wise comments in the other Post.

But I'm finding it difficult to follow the conversation, which is  
boring, confusing and filled with mis-targeted invective. It's  
complicated: There's no easy fix, legislative or otherwise. Any  
legislation may solve one problem - stopping a particular bad  
practice, for example - but it could also stop other good practices  
or stall competition in the development of new services.

The big fight is in essence two interest blocks arguing over who owns  
the consumer: Is it the big content-providers and carriers, who can  
make money by offering content in exchange for audience?... and, oh,  
to get those audiences, they'd like to get exclusive access, please.  
Their pitch to consumers is that without us, you'd have to pay more  
for your Net access.

Or is it the other side, the paternalists and free-loaders who want  
to keep the Net the way it (supposedly) always was, open and  
"free" (for themselves as well as for consumers)? They want to make  
it illegal for certain (big bad) companies to offer too much in the  
way of network-based enhancements and charge for them. They are  
generally suspicious of business and even of consumers making their  
own choices. It's unfair, they say, for a movie-streaming service to  
be able to pay more to offer faster access to consumers - whether  
they reap profits from ads or charge the consumers directly.

Perhaps the consumers should be able to decide for themselves, but  
amidst all the rhetoric they have a hard time figuring out what to  
ask for....

There are real issues here, but legislation isn't gong to solve them.  
Antitrust enforcement is probably the best solution.

Bandwidth is cheap and fungible...until the last mile

One issue is that there's a definite scarcity of local bandwidth:  
There are only a couple of service providers that go to any  
particular person's house, and you don't want AT&T saying "the only  
content you can have is content we offer [for which we are paid big  
bucks because it carries advertising]. We're such nice guys, we're  
giving it to you for free." That squeezes out other content  
providers, and is a bad thing. (And by the way, AT&T agreed to "net  
neutrality" provisions only for its basic service; it specifically  
excluded "internet TV" in the promises it made to the FCC.)

If the incumbent carriers really had their way, we'd have a situation  
like what we have on cell phones, where providers pay tribute to the  
carriers in order to appear on the main screen; if you're not there,  
it's almost impossible to find an audience, though as Internet access  
becomes better, things are changing. Gary Bolles http:// 
conferenzablog.typepad.com/conferenza/2007/02/the_mobile_clas.html
describes how many start-ups are showing up with cool mobile apps  
that are both carrier- and device-independent. (Yeah, but how many of  
them will still be in business next year?)

[snip]




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com