It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

Who should protect the Net Neutrality

Comments

It is hard to go around the blogosphere lately without reading about Net Neutrality . Unlike the rest of the world, I’m not so convince by the apocalyptic visions about the end of the free network.

Let me start with clarifying that I do not think that ISP ’s should charge additional payment for content delivery, beyond the charges they already for the accesses for the network. Moreover I believe that the it is the best interest of the network development that these ISP’s will not control the traffic in the pipes.

Most of the arguments , at least the good ones, for government protection of Net Neutrality basing on two points. the first one assume that the public cannot “defend” its rights without the power of the government. The second argument is more interesting and its basically said that the network was built with government, and thus the public,  protection and therefore the public has the right to interfere with decisions about the use of the ISP property (i.e. the network’s infrastructure).

While these are good arguments they are not enough to convince me that the further involvement of government in the network is a good idea. The justification of the government increasing regulation of the network based on past regulation seemed like infinite loop. It is time to get the government out of the game, not to persuade it to deeper its involvement. In fact it is really harder to convince me that the government will secure the freedom of the network in a week where its approved unanimously the broadcast decency enforcement act.

I disagree with many of the arguments in Art Brodsky’s excellent post , but I agree with this statement:

“But another cliché says it ain’t over until it’s over. And it ain’t over.”  

The truth is that trying to control the network and to recreate the old monopolies is impossible in a free market and is a bad business. Consumers are less depended on the baby bells today, and are going to be even less depended in the future. Options, like BPL, going to widen the competition and to set more choices. Consumers will move from a carrier that limits their options to ones that enable options and if the baby bells will try to recreate the reality of the 60’s and 70’s they are going to face shocking reality.

I don’t think that the fact that Google investing in companies that develop such options is a coincidence. Furthermore , the content companies are in a size , and pile of cash, that – if bullied enough – can turn into a new game of mergers. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see Google going after Verizon or Yahoo! After AT&T.

Net Neutrality is a good idea, having the government “Protecting” it isn’t. The net will remain neutral because it make sense , not because of the FCC.  Who should protect the Net Neutrality? Nobody!

Written by Rogel

June 10th, 2006 at 12:07 am

Posted in The Free Market

« Democrats and Liberties
The park across the corner »

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Jim,
    I basically agreeing with you. Let me just clarify the double billing issue: The content providers already paying for bandwith as well as the content cunsomers, billing for the delivery of the content (simmiliar to charges for usage in your old phone system) is actually a double-billing.
    • ^
    • v
    Also, BTW, content providers already pay surcharges to get their content to consumers more effectively--but they pay not the telcos, but companies like Akamai and Limelight, which have local cache servers placed all over the Internet as close to the eyeball customers as possible. (Or they pay more to get the effect of Akamai-type services themselves through redundant and diverse providers and servers.)

    Net neutrality advocates need to be careful that their proposals don't prohibit business models like Akamai's.
    • ^
    • v
    The telco proposal to charge content providers isn't to double-charge (though clearly they want to maximize profits and make money at both ends), it's to have the content providers subsidize the cost of fiber to the home for the consumers, because the consumer isn't going to want to pay the full cost. Frankly, I don't think that even if the telcos get the option to do that that they'll be able to maintain such a regime--consumer demand for services not developed by the telcos will end up giving the providers of those services the upper hand, not the telcos.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't care how much the ISP going to charge for the service, Competition and cost structure will regulate it. I don't like being double charged and I don't want my ISP to control the content I consume.
    But more than that I don't want the government doing the same thing while claiming it protect me.
    • ^
    • v
    BTW, ISPs in Israel ought to charge their customers extra in order to survive. They can't make you pay for content, so they sell you a wide range of idiotic services, such as a super-expensive anti-virus service which controls only your ISP mail box.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus