Posted on 02/08/2006 8:50:28 PM PST by crushelits
The debate over controlling access to the Internet took center stage in the U.S. Senate this week during a hearing that focused on "network neutrality" and possible new legislation that advocates say would protect the Internet from being fractured by special interests.
The crux of the issue is a growing interest among telecom and cable companies, including AT&T and Comcast, which are the primary broadband service providers in the U.S., to charge content and service providers, such as Google, Yahoo, and Vonage, for use of those high-speed networks.
At a hearing held Tuesday by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Walter B. McCormick Jr., president and CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association, told lawmakers that the future of the Internet requires a multi-billion-dollar investment in advanced broadband networks.
"Businesses that seek to profit on the use of next-generation networks should not be free of all costs associated with the increased capacity that is required for delivery of the advanced services and applications they seek to market," he said.
"Regulatory or legislative solutions wholly without justification in marketplace activities would stifle, not enhance, the Internet," he argued.
Discrimination Charged
But Vinton Cerf, a vice president at Google and a noted Internet pioneer, argued that allowing broadband carriers to control Web access would undermine the basic principles of an open Internet.
"Enshrining a rule that permits carriers to discriminate in favor of certain kinds or sources of services would place those carriers in control of online activity," he told committee members. "We firmly believe that carriers will be able to set market prices for Internet access and be well-paid for their investments, as broadband carriers in other countries have successfully done."
Opinion is divided on Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers supporting a return on infrastructure investments and exhibiting reluctance to pass legislation inhibiting the carriers' business, while others favor a law that would prohibit what they see as discriminatory practices by network operators.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) argued at the hearing that special interests want to expand their control over Internet access to the world of content. "Some of these cable and phone companies are ... saying that, instead of making available to everyone the same content at the same price, they want to set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites," he said.
Spirit of the Internet
Also pushing network-neutrality legislation is the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which contends that requiring Internet companies to pay for high-speed Internet not only would result in higher access fees for consumers but also would stifle both innovation and competition.
"The telecoms and cable operators are trying to legitimize discriminatory business models in which they charge fees to ISPs and applications developers," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the CFA.
Cooper contends that the key to the success of the Internet is open, unfettered access to the content provided. "When the carriers say they will charge Google for access to 'their network,' they are trying to take Google's business. Google, and others, in turn will pass those charges on to Internet users," he said.
A recent poll conducted by the CFA, Consumers Union, and The Free Press found some 75 percent of Internet users are "seriously concerned" about not being able to choose an Internet service provider freely and being required to pay twice for certain Internet services. Another 70 percent were concerned about providers blocking or impairing their access to Internet services or sites, such as VoIP service or online retailers.
Fifty-four percent want Congress to take action to ensure that Internet providers are prohibited from engaging in these practices. "The public clearly understands the importance of open, nondiscriminatory access to the Internet from network owners," Cooper said.
Can't they ever leave ANYTHING alone?
Nope, not when it involves money to be made or taxes to be levied.
They - and businesses too - want only a controlled marketing platform, a cross between Rolling Stone magazine and Dan Rather journalism.
It does not need to be subsidized yet.
Consider an analogy. Assume, back in the 1920's that automobile companies argued that since railroads already had their rails laid, all automobiles regardless of quantity, should be shipped at a fixed cost. It would have been a great business model for the auto industry.
Basically, the Googles and Yahoos of the world have chanced upon a business model where they can ship as much of their product to their customers as they can, but the shipper can only charge them a fixed fee.
If the shipper (telecom backbone providers) has to increase capacity to handle the increased traffic, then tough. But the Googles and Yahoos can sell as many ads as they want, knowing that the next ad can be sent to their customers without a marginal cost. All fixed costs of increased traffic fall on the telecoms without compensation. It's a great business model for Google, but a little shortsighted for the internet.
But to complete the analogy, the dealers would be paying according to the rate at which automobiles were being unloaded off the railroad cars. You pay one rate for 10 cars a day, another for 100, etc. Also the fuel on the cross country portion of the hauls would have to be virtually free to the railroads.
I predict when the 2008 campaign gets underway, Democrats and the MSM are going to go for an all-out blitz on the blogs and FR, calling them extremist sites that should be banned.
Nope. They try, as they've done in our state for decades, to buy off the pols in order to game the system.
Government should preserve their 'franchise' at all costs, and damn the results. Gutless and lazy rent-seekers, no more, no less.
We will just have to start a new net if the screw with this one. A black-net.
Thank you both for agreeing with me. I am all for keeping the markets fair and balanced and ensuring the safety of our citizens and all, but too much government intervention, regulation, etc. etc. always tends to have negative effects on fair and honest business. What should happen is that private businesses be free of most regulatory controls, but also not immune to being charged with a capital crime if it commits one. I.E. if a CEO of a company knowingly allows a capital crime to be committed by the company him or her and every employee involved should be charged, tried, and sentenced accordingly. No more of this hiding behind Corporation and Incorperation B.S.
The very notion that broadband providers might be able to "control the internet" is like saying that slugs should control the garden.
Not that broadband companies are slugs but that the comparison to them in a garden is appropriate, with the internet the user "garden" area of production and activity.
Does anyone know of any cable company who has ever acknowledged anything other than that they provide "excellence in customer service and performance"?
My point precisely. This is so transparent I can't believe Congresscritters think we are all so dumb as to fall for these arguments.
You are sure wrong. Ever shipped perishable items by truck or rail ? Try UPS rates - overnight, 2 day, regular business etc etc.
And, broadband providers have different levels of service - for example, you can get so-called business DSL at higher speeds than residential DSL. You pay for the bandwidth that comes to your location, whether you use it or not. In point of fact, for most, that means they are paying for bandwidth they don't use for a good part of the day.
Take a good look around.
Not exactly. When the telecom backbone providers increase capacity, they do so to serve more customers, and in many cases justify higher fees to their existing customers based on their infrastructure improvements.
Further, the accessibility of content gatherers like Google is a drawing card for the information transporters like Comcast. The relationship is much more symbiotic than the infrastructure giants seem willing to admit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.