Re: I dont know how to title this but on net-netrality, google and the world may fit

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: November 12, 2008 12:53:59 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   I dont know how to title this but on net- 
netrality, google and the world may fit

David Reed writes:

> But Clelend's arguments are disingenuous, because he presents them  
> to contrast Google to first-mile access providers, who are the major  
> funders of NetCompetition, who have both *got* monopolies  
> (government granted)

The above is simply not correct. My company is a "first mile" access  
provider, and we do not have a monopoly nor are we asking the  
government for one. While the government seems intent upon making it  
impossible for us to compete by denying us reasonable access to radio  
spectrum and by allowing the telephone and cable companies to engage  
in anticompetitive practices with impunity (witness the Trinko case),  
we are surviving and growing nonetheless. (Even in our small city of  
28,000 people, we add several customers a week.)

Alas, advocates of Internet regulation (which has been given the  
misleading name "network neutrality") usually found their arguments on  
the false premise that there is no broadband competition. Repeating  
this false assertion does not make it so. In fact, there is very  
aggressive and vibrant competition from companies such as my own. And  
there would likely be more if proponents of Internet regulation did  
not deny our existence -- in some cases, in testimony before  
government bodies such as Congress and the FCC -- and thus harm our  
businesses.

> and have tried *use* their monopoly position to block traffic and  
> limit customer choices in many ways by blocking Internet traffic,  
> examining its content, and so forth.

Neither our ISP nor any other of which I am aware blocks traffic  
unless it violates the agreement between the ISP and the customer. We  
do not monitor traffic except for the purposes of network maintenance  
and/or detecting violations of our terms of service.

> So I could ask here: does Cleland want to make a statement about the  
> dangers of local access monopolies? A lawyer cross-examining his  
> "testimony" would require him to explain how inspection of traffic  
> by local access monopolies is different than that of Google.

Again, local access is not a monopoly. I and my more than 4,000  
colleagues (in the US alone) put the lie to this assertion. And our  
automatic monitoring of traffic (it is not "inspection" by a human  
being) is done solely to assure quality of service and to detect  
network abuse. Google, by contrast, truly is a monopoly. And it  
monitors users' search queries AND THEIR E-MAIL so as to build up  
dossiers on them and target advertising to them. Clearly, this is far  
more intrusive.

In short, we see in Mr. Reed's message a number of false and  
inflammatory statements which seek to advance the goal of imposing  
regulation upon the Internet -- a medium which has flourished  
primarily due to the absence of overbearing regulation. Regulation of  
the Internet should be limited strictly to prohibitions on  
anticompetitive conduct and/or monopoly maintenance where it does  
occur -- including the Google/Yahoo deal and refusal to deal or price  
gouging by Internet backbone providers (which harms last mile  
competition).

--Brett Glass






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com