Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I happen to disagree with Laurens characterization of a benign Google.  
They have all the potential of out MSing MS.  But that is in the  
future (maybe the not very distant future.

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: November 12, 2008 6:15:56 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day


Dave,

I can only assume that much of the readership feels trapped in a
situation like that of Bill Murray in the film "Groundhog Day" --
when the usual suspects start batting net neutrality back and forth
here in IP.

But there are underlying truths in play -- this isn't like a movie
review where opinions are mainly a matter of taste.

Let's start with a number.  According to best public estimates right
now, the top 5 ISPs have over a 55% U.S. market share.  The top 23
hold more than 75% market share:
http://www.isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html

Everyone else, including most of those 4000+ wireless ISPs that
Brett likes to talk about, are clustered down in the remaining less
than 25%.

Brett portrays his (often laudable) business practices as if they were
representative of the ISP industry at large.  But even his own
statements illustrate why so many observers put the dominant ISPs in
a completely different category.  From Brett's last posting here in IP:

  "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."

Who are these "telephone and cable companies" being referred to?
None other than the dominant carriers with that monster Internet
access market share!

Why aren't wireless ISPs on the radar for most consumers?  In many
cases, it's because they are not accessible for technical reasons in
a given location, or can't offer a similarly attractive
price/performance package as the dominants, frequently due to the
antitcompetitive situation that Brett cites.

David Reed brought up a critical point that illustrates why so many
of us bristle when some advocates attempt to draw comparisons between
Google's market share for particular Internet services, vs. the
extremely limited practical competition for Internet access services
for most U.S. Internet users.

The term "monopoly" gets thrown around a lot but it's a much more
complex subject than simply a board game with a "Get Out of Jail
Free" card.

First, it must always be remembered that whatever Google's scope,
your friendly ISP has it beaten in terms of your data seven ways from
Sunday.  Every single blessed byte you send or receive, every TCP or
UDP connection you directly establish, every piece of e-mail passes
through your ISP.  That is power with a capital P.

And how did these ISPs attain such exalted positions?  Much of the
time, simply by edict.  Your local DSL and cable firms are usually
the direct descendants of the basic telco and CATV services that
were typically granted monopoly (in the most basic sense of the word)
status in any given location.

This is precisely the sort of telecom situation where regulatory  
apparatus
historically has been most applicable.

Google is entirely different.  They weren't granted any exclusive
establishment rights by municipalities or other government
entities.  They didn't even twist arms the way that courts have found
Microsoft guilty of widely doing.

Google got to where they are now "simply" by being so effective at
providing the services that they deploy, and through Internet
users -- remaining free to enter non-Google URLs into their browsers
at any time -- who have chosen to use those Google services.

A firm that achieves market dominance in any business segment
through its own hard work and customer satisfaction is *not* the
same as a company that achieved dominance by virtue of special
privilege grants or illicit manipulation of the marketplace.

While it can be true that any dominant firm may sometimes be subject
to certain extra responsibilities and in some cases specific
restrictions, attempts to equate Google to ISPs in these regards are
in my view misleading and inaccurate, and do not well serve reasoned
dialogue on the serious issues involved in the Network Neutrality
debates.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com





-------------------------------------------
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