Posted on 01/02/2007 8:11:05 AM PST by shrinkermd
...Net neutrality travels under the euphemism of "nondiscrimination," which sounds very nice. But what it really means in practice is that the government dictates what AT&T and other Internet access companies can charge users of their pipelines. So there's "discrimination," all right -- against the companies that have invested billions to lay that pipe.
The beneficiaries of this discrimination are Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other very rich Web businesses, which have loaded up on Beltway lobbyists to have these mandates imposed. Democrats are taking the PAC money and running interference. The Democratic Commissioners -- Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps -- were able to extort this concession from AT&T because one of the three GOP Commissioners recused himself from voting on the merger under pressure from Democrats on Capitol Hill. It was a nasty game of bad cop-worse cop, and it is probably a portent of things to come.
The one thing no one should be deceived about is that this ambush has anything to do with "consumers." Internet users will benefit most from the rapid rollout of broadband, which requires letting companies get a return on their investment. Net neutrality is all about imposing price controls that shake down one corporate player for the benefit of another.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If the government can set the prices for internet access today, it'll be trying to regulate content tomorrow.
it's not about government setting prices, it's about whether access providers can blackmail large companies by threatening to provide substandard service if they don't pay.
What some of those providers want to do is charge twice for the same bandwidth - and one of those parties isn't their customer. Instead of charging their own customers more for internet access, they want to be able to compete in that market on price while soaking places like amazon for the 'privilege' of letting the ISP customers get to their website normally. That's nothing more than blackmail.
Imagine you run a company that takes a lot of phone calls. You already have phone service you pay for. 50% of your incoming calls come from people with, say, AT&T for their home phone service. One day AT&T comes to you and says "You know, people are using AT&T lines to call you. We know you already pay for your own phone service. But you should pay us an extra fee because a bunch of those phone calls are coming through us. And if you don't pay, your connections with those customers might be really bad and you could end up losing business because of it".
That's mafia like activity. You can't go up to a non customer and threaten them. If they want to make more money, they should charge their own customers more, not shakedown big companies that aren't their customers via threats.
If you own the line you should be able to do what the hell you want with it. Blackmail involves the violation of individual rights; there is no such thing here. Considering the billions spent on the network, regulation of this sort is clearly a taking and is theft.
As for your AT&T scenario, that already happens with cell phones. Say you’re with AT&T (Cingular when they merge with BellSouth) and the only towers in the area where you live are Sprint. AT&T has to pay Sprint everytime you make call that connects through their tower. Usually if about 70% of your calls go through another providers tower then you become unprofitable and they cell company drops you.
Well said FlashBunny.
I will only add that Ed Whitacre (ATT CEO) is the "Greed Devil" incarnate with nothing but aspirations to be the bully of the industry. If he had his way he'd clone himself as Carlos Slim Helo of Telmex and instill a similar monopolistic reign in the US where a family's telecom expenditures are 30% of their income.
Furthermore, there are countless legal cases and FCC hearing records where ATT refuses to pay other carriers under set law and regulation with only a plan to strong arm smaller player into smaller financial settlements.
I say anything and everything that makes ATT step back from their desired path is a win for Americans.
If there was true competition instead of two, quickly becoming one, choice, your point would be valid.
But it's not.
There is regulation and local monopolies. The choice is not free competion or regulation, but the right regulation.
Raymann, you are wrong.
There is no settlement between wireless companies for (local to local) calls. This same non-settlement scenario prevails more and more for wireline calls too.
Access charges do remain for the receiving company on any scenario where a long distance call is delivered to the local company, either wireless or wireline. And in this scenario, ATT attempts to cheat on their payments across the board.
You could be right, I haven't read up on that in a while.
The argument isn’t about competition, its about rights. The government has no right telling either an individual or a company what to do as long as they’re not violating individual rights. Other then socialists and fascists, there is no moral or philosophical system out there that would consider such an action moral.
This is the same situation as if the government told you you had to let people walk across your yard to get to the other side and you couldn’t get compensation from them.
The argument isn’t about competition, its about rights. The government has no right telling either an individual or a company what to do as long as they’re not violating individual rights. Other then socialists and fascists, there is no moral or philosophical system out there that would consider such an action moral.
This is the same situation as if the government told you you had to let people walk across your yard to get to the other side and you couldn’t get compensation from them.
The government controls the easement for all utility "land line" in to property...and wireless bandwidth is also limited by available spectrum and again controlled by government....
This is not a free market in that you can go to any one for "real" access..(You and any ISP you choose still have to deal with someone else having a government granted access monopoly between you and your ISP choice)
The government gives right to land line easement/broadcast spectrum to provide telcom/Internet access .. that a necessity of physical reality of providing the "pipe" there a natural monopoly (or we could go for unregulated broadcast and unregulated running of "land-line"everywhere and see what happens)
The free market in not in the pipe...the free market is in the content provided in the pipe....
If the government license,government granted monopoly pipe provider think there getting screw the can give up there government granted "access provider" monopoly.... and go in to the "content provider" free market
At its core, this issue is a matter of control. Should a company be permitted to control its assets, or should the government?
The amount of money involved, the technology in question, who the customer is, those are all entirely beside the point. If AT&T paid for and owns the network infrastructure, then they should be able to set their prices as they see fit. If a customer is free to choose to do business with AT&T or not, then AT&T should be free to charge what ever they like.
Don't let your dislike of a corporation fool you into thinking that government control is better. It never is. Those who don't like AT&T are free to do business elsewhere. If the government is in control, then you have no choice.
That is unadulterated BS. Only socialists and liberals use terms like "blackmail" to characterize competetive practices. If access rates are so onerous to "large" corporations, let them invest the capital to build thier own infrastructure.
The number one reason that the telecom industry in such a snared-up mess is government regulation. I just have to chuckle when so-called "conservatives" start defending government interference in the markets when it involves something they have subjectively defined as "unfair."
As the article states, this is nothing more than corporatist warfare in which one corporation uses the weight of the government, bought and paid for with PAC money, as a weapon against another corporation, all because they are just too lazy to actually compete.
No he isn't.
He is talking about roaming charges, although using Verizon and Cingular as examples won't work since they use different technologies. Inter-carrier roaming settlement charges amount to several tens of millions of dollars a day.
I'm not sure what you mean about AT&T "cheating" on their long distance access payments. Wireless-to-wireline long distance is handled on a wholesale basis. I don't know of any wireless company that charges its customers long distance any more.
Your assertion is that an ISP can police traffic inbound to it's network, downgrading traffic of companies it doesn't like...Please illustrate technically how one would manage to do what you assert. I want the exact technical explanation, and don't spare the details, you won't confuse me I assure you.
Regards,
Col Sanders
More BS. Refer to Col Sanders response above. And once again, I find so-called "conservatives" bleating for government intervention to "level the playing field" to be highly ironic.
Net neutrality is about making sure that corporate entities like Microsoft and Google have government-protected access to infrastructure they didn't have to pay for. It is corporate welfare.
Like other socialists, you have mistaken Internet access as a "right." Net neutrality is the CFR of corporate regulation.
What if CNN said that not only do you have to carry CNN,CNN2,CNN3 but you also have to have every 5th channel be a cnn channel AND the cable boxes had to be programed to automatically be on CNN every time the TV is turned on AND the vchip could never block any CNN channel.
I am torn on this one. On one hand it is free market, but on the other hand it is about silencing dissent. (why should a large corporation be able to obliterate an upstart by prohibiting bandwith to competitors.)
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.