Astro Turf Ad is back

Hi, I work with Hands Off, and while I respect Rep. Schakowsky and the professors who wrote the NN piece, they’re simply wrong. The Internet is not going to become like cable, and doesn’t need “saving.” It’s not either/or — it’s both/and. Yes, video will start coming over broadband, but no, that’s not going to affect your service adversely.

I’ll also point out, USA Today’s technoloy columnist originally supported new NN laws, but has changed his mind. He explains it well:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-06-15-net-neutrality-revisited_x.htm

P.S. And we’re hardly “astroturf” — we make no attempt to hide the fact of our corporate sponsors.

The mistake is assuming that markets exist in a vacuum and they don’t. There is necessarily an oligopoly on the pipe end of things so government regulation is one way or the other is going to settle the shape of the market.

I’d far prefer one that is designed so the user pays for amount of bandwidth and then can access up to that bandwidth as they wish.

Why should telcos be determining what I should be able to access on the internet? The entire value of such a network is that it allows access as the user prefers, not as a central authority decides. Creating a system of site discrimination is just another way to create barriers to entry for smaller sites and allow for rent seeking from those who carry those sites.

Google, Microsoft, and Amazon pay for their bandwidth–why should it be regulated depending on whether they pay off the oligopoly?

Larry,

You state it yourself, “The entire value of such a network is that it allows access as the user prefers, not as a central authority decides.” Well, if the value is in consumer choice what business in it’s right mind might would limit choice? Google et al add value to the net, they make it more profitable for the pipe builders. So, there is really no economic incentive to block content because even in the slower lanes (do we need a metaphor alert…I think I’m mixing…) you are adding value. Selling first class access on the network allows people willing to pay more to get first class service.

Amazon, Google et al. either a) want the faster service w/out having to pay for it or, b) are making $$$ hand over fist right now, so why risk competing with different businesses using the new networks (ie. fight innovation over innovating)?

I also think if your fear is centralization, then turning control over to a central authority is a really bad idea.

I kind of like the third way proposed by Atkinson and Weiser.

1. Transparency — providers have to post terms and access policies.
2. ex post facto regulation — Let’s wait until we have a real problem…For that matter let’s wait until we have the networks built out before we regulate them (I mean c’mon man, aren’t we a little ahead game here?)
3. tax incentives for greater broaband development and deployment.

And Larry, surely you are not arguing that an equivolence exists between the service providers charging Amazon to use THEIR networks and Amazon going to the government to what take the network providers (in a regulatory sense) property?

===l, if the value is in consumer choice what business in it’s right mind might would limit choice?

One that has the ability to charge both ends of the deal. Consumers don’t have broad choices for broadband. Most have two choices at most. The result can very easily result in AOL versus Compuserv where companies than build strategic alliances with content providers.

AOL sucks. This would be AOL on steroids

==The market is far from perfect, but it is still a market. Most Americans do have at least 2 broadband options now, and that number will keep increasing.

But it probably isn’t going to increase. While it might increase at the end user, so you can have three different brands, the operators of those networks which other providers will rent will have authority over the what goes over the internet.

Not to mention the same telcos have repeatedly attempted to block competitors from using their lines or make it prohibitively expensive.

===And the telcos are not going to pick winners, or tell you which sites you can go to. When AOL and Time Warner merged, there were fears AOL users would be unable to read Newsweek, or it would be harder. Well, that didn’t happen. Nor would it here.

But this is the point, if you are down to two networks, your choice can be limited by just like something similar to AOL where there is every incentive to advantage certain content and that impedes consumer choice and creates a huge barrier to entry in the market.

There is still a market with net neutrality. It’s just that the market choices are if you want to buy bandwidth, you pay for what you utilize and then it’s entirely up to you how to do so. In the case of telcos having the ability to privilege content, bandwidth access can be limited thus privileging different sites and creating a barrier to entry to those wanting into the online marketplace.

The question is why would the telcos care about net neutrality if they weren’t going to change access?

It might not be a ban, but your AOL analogy is perfect. AOL continues to make it harder to access sites it doesn’t with which it isn’t partnered. One might argue that’s incompetence on the technical end in that case, but it certainly makes browsing more difficult.

===Amazon, Google et al. either a) want the faster service w/out having to pay for it or, b) are making $$$ hand over fist right now, so why risk competing with different businesses using the new networks (ie. fight innovation over innovating)?

No, they want the level of bandwidth they pay for….just as when i upgraded to Yahoo!’s faster DSL, i get more bandwidth to do with as I want. I can run a erver and send packets up to that bandwidth limit. The question is if we let telcos double dip and charge not only for the amount of packets, but being ahead of the line with your packets.

The problem with the argument that it threatens innovation is that there will always be a limited number of bandwidth suppliers and so the incentives to innovate

The best question that no one answers is what killer development do telcos hope to introduce that net neutrality would kill? Now, what competition is hurt by giving larger companies access to move first on the highway? Small upstarts where innovation occurs, meaning not the current Google, but the next Google.

===2. ex post facto regulation — Let’s wait until we have a real problem…For that matter let’s wait until we have the networks built out before we regulate them (I mean c’mon man, aren’t we a little ahead game here?)
3. tax incentives for greater broaband development and deployment.

Except think about the economic conditions here. Broadband providers are limited–it’s a natural oligopoly. Sure, we might be able to add a little, but I doubt it would ever get more than the average citizen in an urban area having three choices that actually take the information out of the region (sure there will be more ISPs, but not the same thing).

Now, think about how many potential web applications/sites exist? It’s limitless. If you want to encourage a marketplace (and this is something Greg and I will disagree on in principle because we’ve had the discussion in other places) which is the better choice?

Where Greg and I will never agree is that when you have limited providers, regulation isn’t taking, it’s fixing a market failure.

And Handsoff—thanks for commenting, while we disagree, I do appreciate the dialogue and especialliy the effort to engage on the ads. That’s a lot smarter of a strategy and more interesting too.