11 comments

• 

  Richard Bennett

  3 years ago

  "All the net neutrality folks are talking about is doing [common carrier] for the Internet."
  
  No, that's not true. The text of HR 5417, the net neutrality bill passed by the US House Judiiciary Committee last week, prohibits any broadband network provider -- at the edge or at the core -- from providing voice-grade Quality of Service for a fee. "Common carrier" would simply require any fee for such service to be reasonable and non-discriminatory.
  
  There has never been such a regulation on the Internet at any time in its history, and this regulation would make the Internet much less "neutral" than it's ever been.
  
  Educate yourself, dude.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  3 years ago

  Thanks for the comment, Richard -- and for making that point about what the proposed net neutrality bill says. You'll notice, however, that I never said the legislation stuck to the common-carrier concept. I was trying to give my impression of what many net neutrality proponents have in mind when they talk about the subject, and I think the common-carrier idea comes the closest to expressing that.
  
  In any case, if you're talking about legislation that would prevent the telcos from offering preferential treatment for certain services (i.e, their own) at the expense of others, that seems to me to be a fair extension of the "open pipe" common carrier concept.
  
  As for educating myself, I thought about suggesting that you do the same, since many of the posts on your blog contain grammatical and spelling mistakes, but I thought that would be rude.
  reply
• 

  ghoti06

  3 years ago

  Interesting post. I work for a company in the Hands Off coalition so I'm hardly an unbiased observer, but I think it would be a mistake to treat the Internet like a public utility. Unlike the water or electricity board, the telecom industry is actually growing and expanding. Keeping the profit motive is the best way to ensure new things keep happening. Government is best at maintaining, not improving things -- and I think we all want more than just simple maintenance of what we have now.
  
  There really isn't a crisis, only one cooked up by the big online media companies and their allies in Washington. I say we let things continue on as they are, and then if there are actual moves by anyone to restrict access to the web, okay, THEN we can talk about new laws. Until then, Congress should stay out.
  
  Also, that "telco lobbyist" who debated Craig Newmark is Mike McCurry, who was Clinton's second spokesperson and just about the best White House spokesperson in living memory.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  3 years ago

  Thanks, ghoti06 -- interesting name.
  
  I am a big supporter of the profit motive, don't get me wrong. And maybe you are right that we should leave things alone until there are more obvious signs of a problem. But I have to say that trying to impress me by saying Mike McCurry was the best White House spokesperson in living memory isn't really helping your argument :-)
  reply
• 

  ghoti06

  3 years ago

  Thanks, it's a George Bernard Shaw reference, (google "ghoti" if you don't know, although I think maybe you do).
  
  McCurry definitely isn't the point here, I was just giving him a boost after all the bad press these past few weeks.
  
  But I guess my main points are clear enough -- profit motive drives innovation, and let's take a wait-and-see before legislating the issue.
  
  Interesting post, and thanks for the reply!
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  3 years ago

  What's really going on here is that the Big Content companies are afraid the Internet will become more a medium of communication than a means of delivering canned content, and that will eat away at their profits. So they've concocted this whole FUD campaign that dishonestly makes Quality of Service enhancements for communications applications a threat to web access.
  
  The Internet is more than the Web, and beefing up the communications side makes the content less compelling. Instead of whining about the Telcos, Big Content should try to be more interesting.
  reply
• 

  Net Chick

  3 years ago

  Google is simply afraid of competition. They are trying to strong-arm the government into doing their will. There is no problem, so no solution is needed at this time. Why now? Why is this such a hot topic all of sudden?
  reply
• 

  internetfree

  3 years ago

  Hmmm. Very phuichi indeed, Ghoti :) I read the post you reference here, and noted that this is really a question of whether to charge consumers or charge content providers. We can debate which is the fairest way to distribute costs, while still maintaining profitability for service providers. However, I agree with Ghoti that government should not intervene without sufficient evidence that such intervention is absolutely necessary.
  reply
• 

  SoCal619

  3 years ago

  I agree that there is no need for regulation yet and ultimately profit motive is the logical recourse for the time being. Simply, how often does bringing the Government into a situation actually result in a problem being solved? They tend to overIy complicate things and are best at maintaining things (as Ghoti notes). Ultimately, I think they collectively have enough on their plates right now and should leave the internet to regulate itself.
  reply
• 

  sharpsburg

  3 years ago

  "...profit motive drives innovation, and let’s take a wait-and-see before legislating the issue.
  
  This is spot on. Thanks.
  reply
• 

  garmond

  3 years ago

  Very Very nice information here... Thanks
  reply