Who should protect the Net Neutrality
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!
No tag for this post.blog comments powered by Disqus
Add New Comment
Viewing 5 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
But more than that I don't want the government doing the same thing while claiming it protect me.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Net neutrality advocates need to be careful that their proposals don't prohibit business models like Akamai's.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
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.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks