June 27, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Perspective: Why Net neutrality means more federal regulation
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
An Internet for the few or the many?
June 27, 2006 -
Senate panel proposes Net user 'bill of rights'
June 19, 2006
However, Net neutrality threatens to hold this needed reform hostage. This term has become a nebulous catchall for a number of competing public policy issues. To illustrate the current level of confusion: Neither the House Energy and Commerce Committee nor the Senate Commerce Committee could arrive at a conclusion of what Net neutrality really means. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Ark., rightly expressed his frustration that defining it was like "defining a vacuum."
Supporters of Net neutrality generally fall into three main categories. Some advocacy groups, like the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org, worry that without explicit prohibitions in place, network owners could get away with blocking or degrading Web sites based on their religious or political content. Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their businesses might require for advanced services in the future. A third group believes the Internet should be managed with heavy-handed public utility-style regulation or government price controls.
In reality, the definition of Net neutrality boils down to the government telling network owners that they can't provide higher speed or more capacity for Internet sites or services that have different needs to serve their consumers. It would also restrict the ability of these network retailers to reduce costs to consumers by charging content providers differently based on their network requirements.
The bottom line: This unnecessary government regulation would discourage investments in broadband networks because it would give government control over them and limit the ability of Internet network retailers, such as cable, wireless, satellite and telephone companies to provide the highest quality and lowest price services to their customers.
Proponents of this regulatory bonanza say that without government interference, networks will block basic Internet services and Web sites to consumers. Yet this has not happened without federal regulation. Unlike the current video franchising problem, Net neutrality remains only a theoretical threat. Even a content producer such as Amazon.com, which is advocating for these new regulations, testified to Congress that a problem does not currently exist.
It would be commercial suicide for any network provider to limit the ability of their customers to access any site or receive any service: Their customers would simply go elsewhere! Consumers have a growing number of choices of networks, and this competition will force networks to continuously upgrade their services. Federal regulation, on the other hand, would only reduce the quality and access of Internet services for all Americans.
In response to arguments raised by Net neutrality advocates, Chairman Stevens sought common ground by adding language establishing a "Consumer Bill of Rights" in the recently released third draft of the Senate telecommunications reform bill.
Although I will support the bill as currently drafted, I am concerned that this new language is still too prescriptive and will have unintended consequences. And it's a certainty that if we go any further toward regulation of the Internet, we risk the grave consequences associated with legislating in the dark; namely, driving away the investment needed to upgrade networks for the next generation of broadband services.
As this debate moves forward, we cannot allow the confusion raised by so-called Net neutrality to be the poison pill that prevents Congress from passing long-overdue telecom reform. We must not risk the future growth of the Internet and all the benefits that this reform would bring to consumers, by growing government regulation in the name of trying to fix a problem that does not now--and may not ever--exist.
Biography
Jim DeMint is a United States Senator from South Carolina.
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, regulation, senator, Internet service, telecommunications
Personally, I am weary of any cute title (like "Net Neutrality") because what the BIG PRINT giveth the small print TAKETH AWAY.
I am also skeptical of people who are against everything and for nothing. Since I tend to be open-minded I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, if you could please elighten us a little - please do so.
Thanks for promoting FASCISM in a country that is supposed to
be about democracy. As Mussolini said, "Fascism is the merger
of state and corporate power." The state is supposed to
CONTROL corporations & keep them in check, not MERGE with
these very corporations and allow them to have unlimited
control over people's lives.
Sorry Jim, but this is one area where government regulation is
absolutely NECESSARY & REQUIRED.
Every single argument in your entire essay is poorly misguided
-- as if written by someone paid off by AT&T themselves. I
could spend the entire afternoon going sentence-by-sentence
through your entire essay, and show you why you are dead
wrong in every single statement you say, but I will just touch on
a few points for now.
The networks taking advantage of their customers & blocking
customers/websites/services is a WAY HIGHER THREAT (and
almost 100% GUARANTEED, based on published comments by
the heads of SBC Global & Comcast) than the threat of them not
being able to stay competitive.
You talk about this ability for customers to go ELSEWHERE?!
Nonsense, Jim! This is a blatant lie! This is not true at all! There
is no truth to this in even the slightest! Where are the customers
going to go, Jim?? You tell me! Thanks to your party who
deregulated the cable & telephone industries, customers have
ZERO CHOICES in the Internet market. Customers have the
choice of ONE cable Internet provider in their homes (if they're
lucky) and they have the choice of ONE DSL provider in their
homes (if they're lucky) -- most customers don't even have both
of these choices... they have to choose whichever ONE Internet
service comes into their households. So tell me, Jim... where
else are the customers going to go? I'll be eagerly waiting for a
response from you.
You talk about public utilities being managed with heavy-hands?
Yes, Jim, that's EXACTLY what should happen here. THANK GOD
public utilities are managed with heavy hands, because it
ensures that I get reliable electricity, reliable running water, and
reliable gas service at a reasonable price -- and that I get it on a
daily basis. Do you ever hear ANYBODY complaining about the
electricity or gas that they get at their house? Meanwhile,
Vonage customers are ALREADY COMPLAINING IN DROVES that
Comcast is purposely degrading the quality of their telephone
calls and they have proof of this.
You say that corporations don't want to have to pay for high-
capacity bandwidth that their businesses might require in the
future? Oh really, Jim? That couldn't be further from the truth.
In fact, NOT ONLY ARE THEY ALREADY PAYING for their Internet
access and bandwidth on their end, but every single customer is
ALSO paying for the Internet access on THEIR END as well. The
network providers are already making the profits on BOTH
SIDES... and now they want to make even more.
Jim, the Internet is SUPPOSED TO BE a media which gives all
humans equal access to the creation & exchange of information.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to how the television
industry is run now: only a few very rich & very select people can
create television shows and get them on the air. (This, in itself,
is a violation of the fact that the people themselves actually own
the public airwaves, but that's a completely different story.)
By allowing the Internet to become like the television industry
will only allow one goal to rise to the surface: The ability for
people like YOU to control what we see, hear, and think. And
wouldn't that be wonderful, Jim? For you to be able to try to
control the minds of the American public even more than you
already do.
The Internet is the ONE-AND-ONLY last bastion of truly free
thought in America, and now you're trying to take that away
from us, too.
Thanks, Jim, for being a fascist and promoting fascism in our
country.
- Scott Rose
do not have his so called "choice" of network providers? Like Scotty
321, I could go sentence by sentence and destroy his comments.
He obviously is just posting a staff written piece without a deep
understanding of the issue.
So fair enough right? More money in the ISP's pockets will allow better service to customers. But customers are already paying for broadband, and content providers are already paying for hosting. So ISP's are essentially asking permission to put extra tolls up on existing and future roads.
The real concern for Net Neutrality advocates is that these extra tolls will limit the ability of small businesses to compete on the Internet. Every major Internet company started as a small start-up. If ISP's have their way, only the large companies that can afford the tolls will be given access full access to the customer. This destroys the open market of the Internet by creating a middle man between the customer and the content creator.
If it was a simple debate, it wouldn't be dragging on for so long. The situation becomes clearest when you look at who's making the arguments. Pro net neutrality parties are the folks who are currently doing business on the Internet and have innovated the technologies that we use every day. The anti-regulation parties are the ISPs who are looking to make money. Politicians are going both ways, but that's expected.
Listen to the experts:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060623-7127.html
Google pays for ALL of the bandwidth they use. They don't pay flat fees for the bandwidth they use, and if they do, then the telco's allowed themselves to be backed into a corner. They can renegotiate contracts when they are up.
Why is it that the the telco networks were built with public money and now they don't have to pay franchise fees? Cable Co's received very little public money to build their networks and had to negotiate franchises and now the Telco's walk in and get another free ride?
The reality is the Telco's want to provide TV service now, and they want to be able to make sure their own products get preferential treatment. That is fine for the "last mile", but not for the backbone.
Research the issue yourself, see what the Telco's are saying in public, not what they PROMISE you will happen. Their PROMISE is not worth the $200 George Bush bill a fraudster tried to pass recently. I am tired of big corporation promises that allow them to laugh all the way to the bank. I don't even get dinner or a kiss good night!
http://www.freepress.net/news/16173
Only he seems to forget, there are about a gazillon Search engines to choose from; If you are lucky you have 2 choices for broadband (cable and DSL).
Neutrality. Read what he has to say here:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
two words: packet sniffing
got it now?
oh, i guess i'm supposed to "trust" the telecos to be fair,
balanced, and honest...
just like fox news....
lolz
Yes MS or google wouldn't want this if it applied to them, but I can't think of many other business that have such a obvious monopoly (the Telcos) where they can change the nature of the internet with one fell greedy swoop. Regulation is necessary where monopolies exist; monopolies are the antithesis of free market. When I have 4 or 5 REAL choices of high speed broadband, then we won't need Net Neutrality. Because no provider would Dream of such a blatant cash grab. Until then we do!
things.
He says, "On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee will
vote on the contentious issue of "Net neutrality," a positive-
sounding yet destructive idea that would allow the government
to regulate away the future of the Internet."
Just replace "government" with "telecom companies" and then
you have an accurate statement.
I also love that uses the excuse that "nobody knows what net
neutrality is, so it's obviously a bad thing"
You'd think a United States Senator would be smart enough to
do the research...oh wait...that's wishful thinking.
What this really boils down to (in my opinion) is that telecos are
******** their pants over municipal wireless (which they've fought
every step of the way) and want to secure new revenue sources
to sustain their out-dated business models.
Pure and simple greed.
Wonderful.
Good thing Senator ****** Bag is giving us half the story. Thanks, C-Net, for putting him on without a rebuttle.
As it stands, consumers and dot-coms each pay for bandwidth over the Internet, regardless of the source or destination. Every packet is paid for on either end of its trip from content provider to consumer. Each type of customer pays for "Internet access," which means access to anyone else who has also paid for "Internet access." The danger is that service providers will distort the definition of what is and isn't Internet access. If a dot-com wants a fairly consistent stream of bandwidth, they don't just want Internet access, the service provider says, they want StreamDirect, with a guaranteed maximum lag and priority over standard Internet traffic over the provider's network. But on the other end, the customer is just paying for the old "Internet access." It isn't immediately apparent to customers that they are really getting less because content providers are being squeezed.
The solution I see is to regulate only the marketing of "Internet access," or any other terminology that is understood to be equivalent. If a customer pays for a 6 mbps connection, than those 6 mbps must be agnostic as to the other end of the connection. There should be no prioritization by type, source, or destination of any traffic to or from an Internet customer. If ISPs want to sell customers 2 mbps of StreamDirect, that's fine. Content providers can offer higher quality services over StreamDirect to customers who want to pay for them. StreamDirect can use the same modem and look the same to the customer's computer or LAN. But, the bandwidth must be kept separate. The non-Internet service cannot be bundled with the Internet service, and one service cannot borrow bandwidth from the other. Without the last two rules, an ISP could still put pressure on content providers who want access to the ISP's "Internet access" consumers.
Competition is a wonderful thing, and I strongly support open markets. But broadband companies, many with tremendous market share at the consumer end, have the power to wield semi-monopolistic power over content providers. Without a modicum of regulation in the broadband industry, not in the way its businesses are run or its routers are constructed but in the disclosure of the nature of the product to the customer, we will see a weakening of competition and innovation in the Internet as a whole.
"As it stands, consumers and dot-coms each pay for bandwidth over the Internet, regardless of the source or destination. Every packet is paid for on either end of its trip from content provider to consumer. Each type of customer pays for "Internet access," which means access to anyone else who has also paid for "Internet access.""
My only "legislative" addition to this would be: No Internet access provider can determine what kind of packages are exchanged and/or adjust service quality depending on the package type.
Problem I see in this comment is that it allows someone to say that the "Internet access" of some type is not the "Internet access" (but, say "StreamDirect"). Reason: providers would focus on building and charging for that "other" type of "piping" as it would be more profitable. End result: typical, ordinary customer would get less as opposed to the completely neutral Internet where the competition would ensure that whoever provides the cheapest price for given "pipe"/speed wins...
Only criterium allowable for the price structure of the Internet access of any kind should be the speed that it guarantees to the customer and which customer must be able to test at 100% 24/7.
No heavy govt. regulation needed and the market deciding in the end in fawor of the customer.
Telco's/cable claim that they can't do this profitably or innovate? Outright lie. All over the world (from S.Korea to Sweden) people have cheaper and many times 1000 times faster access than the typical USA customer. If it is possible there, it should happen here and if it did, there wouldn't even be a need for "StreamDirect" - everyone would have performance beating it by default with doors wide open for innovation.
1.) The telco's will be able to save the consumers money by passing the cost onto the content companies.
*wana make a bet? Economics 101, the cost will be passed onto the consumer wichever way this falls. If the telcos do not get thier way, Not likely they have had you guys bought and paid for for a while now, they will raise rates, all 3 telcos that affect pricing anyway.*
2.) Consumers have more choices now than ever... I hope you just didn't think before you spoke. lol We have less than ever.
Verizon = Pa Bell
at&t = Ma Bell
Comcast
Time warner + AOL
Sprint = don't make me laugh.
What other major choices do we have? The major Telco's provide the Lines to the Mom and Pop telcos' so there is no fix in moving to them. With the Mergers of this decade there are less companies than after Ma Bell was broke up.
Surely you knew that.
Now here is the last kicker. It might be hard for you though. It is common Sense, The telco's have droped Millions lobbying this. So much in fact they have the Lobbists firms on the hill locked up. I bet you got a nice little pad there hu Jim!!! I am going to bet they will want a return on there money. Ivan Signburg Like Money and dosen't spend easily, Nor does ole Eddy boy at at&t. Somehow, I doubt this will help me at all.
If Google Buys 2 OC48 pipes They should get 2 OC48 pipes. Why does it matter what is on them? Or is this the deal to offset thier cost to blanket the nation in broad band?
Since you probably don't have a clue on this issues and were told how to vote and what to say, I will drop it here. Thanx Jim. Keep you job in polotics, you have no future in technology.
'...Senator Ted Stevens, R-Ark., rightly expressed his frustration that defining it was like "defining a vacuum."'
Last time I checked, Ted Stevens is a senator for Alaska, not Arkansas. I guess Senator DeMint does not proof read the dribble that his aides write on his behalf....or the aides do not proof read the Senator's writings to prevent him from stepping on his crank.
As for the whole net neutrality issue...If you leave it to the corporations, you are screwed...If you leave it to the politicians, you are still screwed.
Big corporations, in the short term, will get their way. Prices will go up, competition will go down and content will be controlled or squelched. When people finally yell loud enough that the politicians can no longer avoid the issue, they will act. And we the consumer, will be still be screwed, but we might at least have the option of dinner and/or a kiss before we are bent over again.
I wonder what I could buy for $50k in US dollars. Senator, I would like for you to vote in favor re-writing the last line of the national anthem to say... "Its your home, if you're paaaaid."
Your check is in the mail.
Why Can't CNET put up a score board or something showing this stuff about their OpEd writers, both Pro and Con Net Neutrality.
I think it helps the "debate" when we know exactly who is really speaking, in this case Telco's. (like we didn't know that already)
I've spent some effort & time getting the dirty details on Mr. DeMint's political contributors. Warning: you may find this frustrating & upsetting.
- Campaign Finance Analysis - Warning: May Give Rise to Feelings of Anger
- by jhaus June 28, 2006 8:33 PM PDT
- Check out my research & commentary on DeMint's piece: Net Neutrality, Political Corruption & Corporate Power | Democracy Undone
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Better link
- by jhaus June 28, 2006 8:36 PM PDT
- joelneuenhaus.com/blog3/2006/06/28/
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)I've spent some effort & time getting the dirty details on Mr. DeMint's political contributors. Warning: you may find this frustrating & upsetting.