Apparently the speed with which new (correct and misinformation) travels can leave some great gaps and provide ample opportunity for misquotes to be propagated and expanded like the waves of a tsunami. Such was the case with Andrew McLauglin's comment purportedly stating that the "FCC Sucks". As noted by Om, Andrew attempted to clear up the misquote informing us that his statement was taken completely out of context. Andrew's full response is online, but to paraphrase (rather than quote), he was stating one of the 5 arguments used by libertarian opponents of 'Net Neutrality', not his opinion.
So, if I get this straight, Andrew is saying that we can and should regulate for Net Neutrality and that the FCC is fully capable of handling this task? Hey, I'm all for net neutrality, as I really don't see good coming from having the industry tax content based on their desires to get their content out first/best, and there is some logic for a bidding war on the bandwidth, but don't both consumers and companies already pay the telcos for access to this bandwidth? And when has 'unlimited' mean only as much as they want you to use?
I can see some pricing plans that limit the bandwidth (haven't they tried these?), but I don't expect the public to sit idly by and have the telcos decide which services the customer should get high quality of service and which ones should get poor quality.
And what ever happened to 'bandwidth is free'???
Kipp
p.s. Andrew is the Senior Policy Counsel for Google, not the General Counsel as previously posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Both comments make sense, but for some reason, I'm not as confident in the market forces as y'all appear to be. I'd like to be, but I need a bit more convincing.
The dominant telcos have not traditionally been exceptionally open in this sense, which is where my concern comes from.
Perhaps one could argue that the competitive networks are now to a point at which they do represent a market force, punishing bad (where bad means not consumer friendly) behavior. Cable (although some of those are owned by the dominant telcos), satellite, and wireless networks can now provide alternative access to the consumer, keeping the networks open and available for creativity and innovation.
But when you say 'Net neutrality is what currently exists' -- that is today, but it is what is being threatened (in my understanding) by the application of 'QoS fees'. One of many quotes, this one from some random consultant quoted by Network World:
"If you look at the people who are inside the industry, the majority of them favor QoS fees because they understand the alternative to it is cessation of investment, which means everybody loses their job," says Tom Nolle, president of consultancy CIMI. "It's a bread-and-butter issue."
Now, help me out. If a majority of people inside the industry favor QoS fees, which by definition, would be not neutral, isn't there a danger of losing some of the flexibility and possibility of innovation? Or are you arguing along the lines above, that this behavior would simply be 'routed around' the 'failed' component in the network?
BTW, thanks for the posts, its sometimes hard to tell what the reality is out there.
Kipp
I agree it would seem to be counter-productive for a number of reasons.
I caught this article on CNET "AT&T chief, FCC chair clarify on Net neutrality".
It looks like the head of AT&T is agreeing with you:
"AT&T will not block or degrade traffic, period," he said. "And we won't change (our position) no matter what sky-is-falling rhetoric you hear. Markets work best when consumers have choices."
However, it goes on to say that: Charging content providers to differentiate their services on the AT&T network would simply help AT&T find a commercial solution to the problem, he said.
Now, I'm not sure, but there can be no 'upgrading' of service for one type of content without 'degrading' another. We really don't have infinite speed and bandwidth, so by virtue of differentiation, you necessarily degrade the service of something.
I am beginning to be swayed regarding the need (or lack thereof) for regulation but I'm still concerned that these companies are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I don't see a way to differentiate without discriminating and degrading other services.
But I concede the point that new legislation may not be necessary and the FCC seems ready, willing, and able to enforce a certain level of neutrality...
Kipp
Thanks BoneQuark (for some reason I feel odd typing that!).
I'd say we're still in the early throes of this thing, but we certainly still have to keep an eye on things.
As Russell Shaw over at ZDNet recently posted, the dramatic shift of AT&T CEO from:
"The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
-- AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre, November, 2005
To his current statement at TelecomNEXT could be on the spin cycle, could be serious, or could be just waiting until the outrage has died down, the legislation is off the table, and they have fewer obstacles.
I do think that we still need to watch closely...
Kipp
Post a Comment