Manage updates with the Download AppMay 4, 2006 4:40 PM PDT
Verizon: Net neutrality concerns are 'hypothetical'
- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
Net neutrality missing from sweeping telecom bill
May 1, 2006 -
Democrats pledge fight over Net neutrality
April 25, 2006 -
New group aims to 'save the Internet'
April 24, 2006 -
Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal
April 5, 2006 -
Democrats attack new bill over Net neutrality
March 30, 2006 -
AT&T chief, FCC chair clarify on Net neutrality
March 21, 2006 -
A better idea for Net neutrality
March 15, 2006 -
Senator: Net neutrality may not happen
March 14, 2006 -
Playing favorites on the Net?
December 21, 2005
C. Lincoln "Link" Hoewing, an assistant vice president at Verizon Communications, said that the ability to charge for services such as high-quality video is crucial to being able to afford the multibillion-dollar price tag of upgrading its network-to-fiber links.
"We could put other services on those pipes--it's got a lot more capacity to do this," Hoewing told the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here. That would help "to make it more viable economically and financially and to help us compete."
Calling concerns about Net-favoritism entirely hypothetical, Hoewing said: "I'm getting tired of it...We've never done anything that I know to interfere with anyone's traffic."
Net neutrality, the concept that all Internet sites should be treated equally by broadband providers without any kind of discrimination, has become a hot political topic in Washington, D.C., this year. Lobbying for laws making the concept mandatory are firms including Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google--which have found allies in Democrats and are being opposed by Republicans.
Republican members of the House of Representatives last week defeated a bid by Democrats to enshrine extensive Net neutrality regulations into law. Under the defeated amendment, the Federal Communications Commission would receive the authority to police the Internet for violations of the rules and ban any kind of preferential treatment based on charging extra fees. (Even without the amendment, however, the FCC already has taken action in cases of blocking traffic.)
Hoewing said that Verizon is able to slice up bandwidth on its high-speed Fios service based on different lasers and different frequencies. But he declined to say what services might be offered. "I can't give you a portfolio of services that I can lay out that are coming out of the broadband networks that we're deploying," Hoewing said.
Gigi Sohn, president of the Public Knowledge advocacy group that has pressed for neutrality legislation, said: "This is an issue of discrimination, or on the flip side, favoritism."
Sohn's group has been part of a coalition that includes one or two conservative organizations--but mostly liberal groups such as Moveon.org. Perhaps as a result, Sohn acknowledged, "This has become very politicized on the Hill...They have decided to make this a partisan political issue."
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, admitted that some longtime Internet hands may be skeptical of giving the FCC more regulatory power. But, he said, if AT&T would ink contracts letting Google.com load in one second but other search engines load in 3 to 4 seconds, "that's a serious distortion of competition in that market."
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, concern, Verizon Communications, law, concept
29 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
And we all know how monopolies can be abused.
This is, despite the attempts to portray it as such, not a Democrat vs. GOP issue. Plenty of conservatives -- from the Gun Owners of America, to Right Wing News, Instapundit, etc. -- support net neutrality. And more are joining the cause every day.
You can read some background material here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html</a> and take action here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> .
Even now, without network neutrality, investment in net startups has chilled: Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus said, "Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality."
So who will fund the next Vonage, Skype, or Google?
With regulation, it becomes very hard for new entrants because there is less money to be made, and the regulatory barriers are higher. The companies that do survive are unnaturally powerful (due to less competition) and are also beholden to gov't. That's a bad combination. That is what the neutrality proponents are advocating.
A variety of services and protocols, on every part of the network, are what will move us forward and invite new players. Skype is cute, but give me my IPTV. Dedicated tiers make that feasible, and guess what? More video competition.
(By the way, if Skype or Google had to adhere to common-carrier rules, they never would have existed.)
The idea that gov't can legislate the next generation of network into existence is absurd. Let the network providers experiment and the customer will make the call.
The market is more competitive by the day: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/04/broadband_expan.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/04/broadband_expan.html</a>
Mr. Hoewing is obviosly not well informed. Selling an "Internet Connection" and using mandatory port filtering to limit what customers use it for IS interfering with traffic. Requiring a more expensive "business account" for an unfiltered connection IS preferential treatment based on charging extra fees.
It is one thing to charge for a bigger pipe. It is another to try and dictate what people do with it.
No, it's not. The company owns the network and they can govern and sell it any way they choose. If you don't like the service, then you are free to pay somebody else. The government has no business dictating pricing structures for ISPs.
There absolutely are different levels of service at different prices, and almost EVERY industry thrives this way. If I pay more than you for my Internet access, I should get more. Simple as that.
Businesses want service level guarantees... and that costs more. Thus... business class services and pricing. Its so obvious, and so common, one really must wonder how this became an issue at all.
There is no such thing as a guaranteed consumer right to the service they want, the way they want it, at the price they want to pay. And no law should establish such a scenario. It will cripple legitimate business.
That only leaves desperately-trying to discredit the overwhelming numbers of people, and industry-experts, who have explained, at great-length, exactly why this Monopoly-based GREED, and Industry-manipulation, will be really bad for almost everyone else.
Just my two-cents...
So.. you are suggesting that it is not logical or ethical to *have the right* to charge different prices for different levels of service?
If that's the case, we're going to have to prosecute almost every business that exists.
"Net Neutrality" is a joke. It is nothing short of Internet regulation by the US Government. It should be rejected, and the Internet should be left just the way it is today, until a problem arises that the private sector cannot handle.
This is not a problem resolution. Net Neutrality is government control over the Internet simply because they can, and it should be rejected because it represents a waste of taxpayer money, a shift in control of the Internet to politicians and lobbyists, and threatens the viability of capitalistic business providing Internet service.
For some reason this seems to be an excepted practice in the wireless industry. However, when your ISP does this, it won't be as easy as flashing your firmware or making a SEEM edit to reverse this.
Good bye iTunes, Amazon, eBay! Your only choice is iGetItNow: minus any licensing deal or extra content fee.
Remember the Telcos has their billing legislation modified in the mid 90's so they could collect HUGE users fees to BIULD OUT THEIR NETWORKS AND FIBER OPTIC INFRASTRUCTURES. Which they didn't.
The truth shall set you free:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm</a>
So I say tough **** boys. You had yor chance to build out but you pocketed the profits instead.
By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions. -- read the promises.
The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household.
There is a lot more and it's all merticulously documented.
Now picture if the telecommunication companies get this bill passed and it makes my wife and I have to stop our internet then we have to go back to make the choices of how we live. Now I wish anyone who wants this bill to pass have to live my life before we were able to start this business then after they spend a day how we were living before be able to go and vote this bill through and then live with the fact that they have done this to not only me but also other disabled people who earn their income the same as me and be able to look in the mirror and live with t he choice they made and how on alot of people it has had more of an affect then they ever thought.
Now picture if the telecommunication companies get this bill passed and it makes my wife and I have to stop our internet then we have to go back to make the choices of how we live. Now I wish anyone who wants this bill to pass have to live my life before we were able to start this business then after they spend a day how we were living before be able to go and vote this bill through and then live with the fact that they have done this to not only me but also other disabled people who earn their income the same as me and be able to look in the mirror and live with t he choice they made and how on alot of people it has had more of an affect then they ever thought.