Daniel Berninger has a neat little piece up on Om Malik’s site, an argument why the Bells should be FOR network neutrality.
Put simply, once the Bells stop being common carriers they lose the benefits of that status, like preferred access to utility poles and streets. Cable operators pay for this access through franchise fees, usually 5% of their revenue.
The Bells will argue they are willing to pay the fee in order to get statewide or nationwide cable franchises. And they distinguish between voice service — which they insist still has common carrier protection — and cable or Internet service, which they claim does not.
Yes, that’s a dodge.
But it doesn’t matter.
Because this fight is not about arguments. It’s not even about right
or wrong. It is a raw political power play by the Bell companies, aimed at
squeezing out more revenue sources from an ever-diminishing customer
base.
In order to squeeze those dollars out of us, the Bells need
government help to get rid of competitors (check), enable their entry
into new businesses (the ostensible purpose of the Barton bill),
maintain their monopoly in the last mile (partly checked), and then to
squeeze both sides of every information transaction as they do with
cellular (which is what the net neutrality fight is really all about).
In order to do this, the Bells have run a K Street Project which
makes Jack Abramoff’s efforts look like child’s play. They dominate
every state capitol. They control a majority of most state
legislatures. They practically own powerful Congresscritters (like
Barton). And they have more Astroturf organizations than Richard Mellon
Scaife, all aimed at convincing the waverers (by any argument
necessary) to knuckle under.
Berninger’s article reminds me of why I once admired my first
Washington boss, James L. Buckley (left, from about the time I knew him). Buckley, who served one term (he beat Charles Goodall, appointed by Rockefeller when Bobby Kennedy died, then was beaten by Moynihan, and it’s now the Hillary Clinton seat) and
eventually got a federal judgeship (he was also the Buckley in the infamous case of Buckley vs. Vallejo) had
what I considered (at the time to be) a wonderful habit of finding novel means of reaching
the same conclusions as his Republican peers. But, in the end, he
always reached those same conclusions. He was playing a game with
argument, getting from A to B via G and thinking he was being cute.
Cute was all he was being.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how you get from A to B. What matters
is whether you should be going there. Arguments, no matter how tidy
they may be, matter much less in politics than the application of raw
power. If the cable operators and Google and Microsoft can call a halt
to the Bellco train long enough for a new Congress to be elected, one
which demands net neutrality and encourages competition, that means a
lot more than what I or Berninger or anyone else may have to say.
If being right were all that mattered in Washington, Jimmy Carter would have served two terms.
This battle over net neutrality should really boil down to appealing to the consumer. Offering the best broadband service and technology for the most reasonable price is what should always win these sorta struggles–not political clout and lobbiest moolah (how naive does that sound, eh? Ha!). But seriously, we’re on the verge of massive change and the government and the Bells need to hear the voice of the people!
This battle over net neutrality should really boil down to appealing to the consumer. Offering the best broadband service and technology for the most reasonable price is what should always win these sorta struggles–not political clout and lobbiest moolah (how naive does that sound, eh? Ha!). But seriously, we’re on the verge of massive change and the government and the Bells need to hear the voice of the people!
If appealing to the consumer is the ultimate goal (and I agree that it is) then is government regulation really required? I mean, without regulation, does the possibility exist that some ISP with abuse their powers and block or hinder sites that don’t pay up? Sure! But is it likely to happen? No. Consumers will not stand for any reduction in the quality of their service, and that includes the speed and reliability of sites like Google and Microsoft. Any ISP who crosses the line will find its customers leaving for more responsible providers.
If appealing to the consumer is the ultimate goal (and I agree that it is) then is government regulation really required? I mean, without regulation, does the possibility exist that some ISP with abuse their powers and block or hinder sites that don’t pay up? Sure! But is it likely to happen? No. Consumers will not stand for any reduction in the quality of their service, and that includes the speed and reliability of sites like Google and Microsoft. Any ISP who crosses the line will find its customers leaving for more responsible providers.
I see, watcher. And those people who have only one broadband choice where they live, what will they do if the local monopoly is not up to their standards?
I see, watcher. And those people who have only one broadband choice where they live, what will they do if the local monopoly is not up to their standards?
What needs to be said about net neutrality is that no one is violating it. Anywhere. It just isn’t happening and it won’t. People need to trust the market to take care of itself.
What needs to be said about net neutrality is that no one is violating it. Anywhere. It just isn’t happening and it won’t. People need to trust the market to take care of itself.
Dear stevens33:
With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. In fact, Savetheinternet.com has a page in which it lists “violations” of net neutrality.
Man, I hate it when people post absolute nonsense because they are too lazy to actually find out what the issue is about.
Dear stevens33:
With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. In fact, Savetheinternet.com has a page in which it lists “violations” of net neutrality.
Man, I hate it when people post absolute nonsense because they are too lazy to actually find out what the issue is about.