[IP] Give Me Bandwidth . . .
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: June 19, 2006 5:17:38 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Give Me Bandwidth . . .
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Give Me Bandwidth . . .
No one to root for in the net neutrality debate.
by Andy Kessler
06/26/2006, Volume 011, Issue 39
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?
idArticle=12348&R=ECCBA034
FINDING IT HARD TO UNDERSTAND the "net neutrality" debate? On one
side are the hip, cool, billionaire web service companies like
Google, eBay, Yahoo, and even Microsoft. Net neutrality is their
rallying cry. Despite the fact that they are basically schlocky ad
salesmen on a grand scale, they're pushing this quaint, self-serving
'60s notion that the Internet is a town square--all for one and one
for them, or something like that. Everyone should be allowed to hang
out in the town square and use it as they please, one low price, eat
all you want at the buffet.
On the other side are the monopolist plumbers like Verizon and AT&T
and Comcast. These are the folks who laid the pipe that delivers the
Internet--the blogs and pirated movies and photos of Shiloh
Brangelina--to your house or office. They think the Internet is more
like a giant shopping mall, and they're the mall owners. You the
customer can walk around as if you were in the town square, but the
tenants (see billionaire web service companies above) are going to
have to pay for the upkeep of the premises. If they're one of the
anchor stores, they might pay a lot.
In an effort to skim their own fees off the Google crowd, lobbyists
and Congress have also taken up the fight. So far, the telcos are
winning--a bid to add net neutrality language to a telecommunications
bill was shot down 269-152 by the House on June 8--but this is one of
those bizarre issues where both sides are off their rocker.
If Congress doesn't act, does this mean Apple might pay 10 cents per
iTunes download to Bellsouth? Will Google have to pay 5 percent of ad
revenue to AT&T for speedy delivery of your search results? Will we
pay $1 per video played in your browser to Comcast? Silly, right?
Well, not so fast, and that's the problem.
Telcos and cable companies have no choice but to lobby for
legislation that bars neutrality. Because without the ability to
extract money from the webbies for the use of their not-so-fast
Alexander Graham Bell-era wires (forget that you and I already
overpay for this), AT&T or Verizon might not have any business model
going forward. With no real competition, they'd rather keep U.S.
telecommunications in the Flintstone era and overcharge for calls to
Grandma than upgrade their networks. Since 1998, telecommunications
companies have outspent computer and Internet firms on politicians
$231 million to $71 million, just to keep the status quo.
Hate to break the news, but your "fast" DSL Internet access is no
longer considered high speed. In parts of the world, cell phones are
faster. Have you wondered why Internet video doesn't fill your
computer monitor and look like a DVD, but instead is pixelated dreck
in a tiny one or two inch square? Well, Comcast is dragging its
heels, too. With better video over the Internet, who would want E!,
let alone the Style Network? Because of this Fred and Wilma thinking,
the United States is 16th in the world in broadband use (behind
Liechtenstein!) with East Timor catching up fast. The French may burn
Citroëns, but they get 10 megabits for 10 euros--50 times your "fast"
Internet access for half the price. That's just not right.
We'll never get 10 megabits to our homes, let alone the multiples of
that speed that are possible and affordable today if these telco
Goliaths keep covering up their crown jewels. As Dean Wormer might
put it: Fat, drunk (on profits), and stupid is no way to go through
life, son.
But the answer is not regulations imposing net neutrality. You can
already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets
involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials
or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks--like
requiring emergency 911 service--to try to kill off free Internet
telephone services such as Skype. And who knows what else? Network
neutrality won't be the laissez-faire sandbox its supporters think,
but more like used kitty litter. We all know that regulations beget
more lobbyists. I'd rather let the market sort these things out.
<snip>
So how do we fix this? Are we stuck in telco hell? Silicon Valley can
ignite a political arms race and spend more on lobbyists, but why
play an old man's game? Instead, these webbies should get creative,
change the rules. Bam-Bam, not Barney Rubble is the future. Take the
telcos and cable companies out at the knees.
Here's an idea: Start screaming like a madman and using four letter
words--like K-E-L-O. And fancier words like "eminent domain." I know,
I know. This sounds wrong. These are privately owned wires hanging on
poles. But so what? The government-mandated owners have been
neglecting them for years--we are left with slums in need of
redevelopment. Horse-drawn trolleys ruled cities, too, but had to be
destroyed to make way for progress. How do we rip the telco's trolley
tracks out and enable something modern and real competition?
Forget the argument that telcos need to be guaranteed a return on
investment or they won't upgrade our bandwidth. No one guarantees
Intel a return before they spend billions in R&D on their next
Pentium chip to beat their competitors at AMD. No one guarantees
Cisco a return on their investment before they deploy their next
router to beat Juniper. In real, competitive markets, the market
provides access to capital.
Without even being paid by the hour, I read through the Supreme
Court's Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain rulings. Surely
there exists some clever Silicon Valley counsel to twist the wording
of the precedent. The telcos may want to treat the Internet like a
shopping mall that they own, but the premises are looking awfully
sketchy. So start with this line: "Economic underdevelopment and
stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their
removal cognizable as a public purpose."
Sure, property rights are important, but that doesn't mean we can't
shake a cattle prod at our stagnant monopolists and say "update or
get out of the way." The mantra should be "megabits to phones and
gigabits to homes." We'll only get there via competition.
Regulations--even regulations that look friendly to the Googles and
Yahoos and hostile to the telcos--will just freeze us where we are
today.
<snip>
We don't even know what new things are possible. Bandwidth is like
putty in the hands of entrepreneurs--new regulations are cement. We
don't want a town square or a dilapidated mall--we want a vibrant
metropolis. Net neutrality is already the boring old status quo. But
don't give in to the cable/telco status quo either. Far better to
have competition, as long as it's real, than let Congress shape the
coming communications chaos and creativity.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/