Network Neutrality
On one level, I find this network neutrality issue a little hard to figure out. It involves technology I only sort of understand and some hard-to-fathom considerations about how important it may or may not be to make it easier to deliver video over internet protocal services and other stuff. Besides which, all this takes place in a distinctly sub-optimal environment -- we really ought to have a much faster public sector broadband infrastructure in place that would make all this irrelevant. That said, one can count up the interest group balance of power and draw some conclusions. Kevin Drum notes that the main net neutrality opponents are deeply evil telecom firms. Even more to the point, in some ways, is which companies are for net neutrality.
Yon list cites Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo as neutrality proponents. Skype and Vonage have a clear and direct interest in this, so leave them aside. From where I sit, my interests on this issue are pretty perfectly aligned with, say, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Basically, insofar as my home internet options become faster/better/cheaper, that's good for a company like Amazon or Google which benefits from people using the web a lot. Insofar as my home internet options get slower/expensive/worse, that's bad for those companies. It's not that, deep down, they have my best interests at heart. Rather, on this particular issue our interests seem to be aligned.
What's more, unlike me these are companies that employ heavyweight technology people and, presumably, lawyers who can really scrutinize these bills and understand FCC arcana. And they seem to have come to the conclusion that internet service will be better with net neutrality rules.
Maybe I've got this wrong. Maybe someone can point to Amazon's insidious hidden agenda here and if so I'd be interested in reading about it. But I can't see what that would be. It's easy to see why the telecom firms might have a motive for liking Barton-Rush that involves screwing me over; it's hard for me to see how Google's opposition to it could be grounded in some desire to screw me over. So that's where I stand unless someone has a debunking of this.
It's worth adding, I suppose, that this is just one corner of an ongoing telecommerung of epic proportions which is actually mainly focused on the process by which phone companies will be able to acquire franchise licenses to provide video services.
I'd like to ask a follow-up question to this: why on earth is Bobby Rush sponsoring this?
April 26, 2006 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bill apparently also includes some provisions for broadband expansion so that areas that are currently left out of the single-tier system will get at least some access to the two-tier system.
All the more reason why we should be aggressive in pushing rural and urban broadband access.
April 26, 2006 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt,
It's pretty easy to see why Google, Amazon et al. are Net Neutrality proponents from a self-interested point of view.
Insofar as the demand for their product isn't elastic with respect to speed (I suspect this is true at this point), then they want to keep costs down. I don't think most people would really use amazon or google more if the internet was faster. Well, certainly they would if they went from dial up to broadband, but that's not the consideration we're looking at for most of their market.
However, a broad Net Neutrality agreement allows them to extract all of the rents from their product, at basically no marginal cost. Take away net neutrality and google has to pay for the space it's using.
Look, we all use cell phones on various networks and can all talk to each other. We dont' get indignant that those who talk more pay more.
Do we really think it's in the interest of these companies to end the Internet as we know it? I certainly don't. There's a reason AOL went the way of the dodo. AOL is now trying to charge per email and people are up in arms. There's a reason for that.
Anyway, with respect to public broadband involvement, I think you should listen to Scott Wallsten on this. He was in the Clinton FCC. He's now at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Policy.
This is pretty good: http://aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=248
"Two artificial barriers reduce competition and choice today.
The first is restrictions on the use of spectrum—those valuable airwaves that carry wireless signals. Because of outdated regulations, much spectrum simply cannot be put to its highest-valued use. Congress and the FCC could give the economy a boost estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars by making more spectrum available and allowing licenses to use it to be traded. One of these uses could very well be more wireless broadband options that would add more choices for consumers.
Second, local governments also block competition by arbitrarily determining who is allowed to enter the market and what types of services can be provided over broadband lines. New firms wishing to provide broadband services often must obtain local approval, access to rights of way, pay fees, and meet regulatory obligations regarding service provision. Firms already providing service must seek local regulatory approval regarding what information can flow across their broadband lines. Telephone companies hoping to provide video services, for example, must negotiate approval separately with each city. Congress could eliminate most of these wasteful and anti-consumer rules.
Both of these suggestions would improve competition, but government still has an important role to play through antitrust enforcement if the market is not workably competitive.
Say that a monopoly broadband provider favors itself in providing Internet phone service by charging a competitor like the leading Internet phone provider, Vonage, an arm and a leg. Antitrust laws allow the government to police such behavior, as it has in the past, by not permitting such self-dealing."
April 26, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"However, a broad Net Neutrality agreement allows them to extract all of the rents from their product, at basically no marginal cost. Take away net neutrality and google has to pay for the space it's using."
Users are already paying for bandwidth through their internet subscriptions. Do you really believe that when a telecom company sets its rates for subscriptions, it doesn't include in all its expenses, plus a profit?
If the telecoms want to invest in more bandwidth, then they should set higher rates for a new, higher bandwidth service. If the customers want more bandwidth, they will pay for it, if not they won't. That is called capitalism.
What the telecoms want to do is charge twice for bandwith. Imagine you had a business and you shipped your products via Fed Express, which was paid for by your customers. Now suppose one day Fed Express came to you and said, "You are making a nice profit using our service. Besides your customers paying for shipping, we want you to pay us too." That is exactly what the telecoms want.
April 26, 2006 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fed Ex is allowed to say that. Why shouldn't they be able to try this pricing scheme? You'd say go Fug Yourself to Fed Ex and use UPS. This is the problem I have with Net Neutrality being taken away. Because of the monopolies granted to the Telecos you can't tell them to go fug themselves if you have only one provider in your area.
Moreover, I pay for bandwidth and you pay for bandwidth, but suppose you spend all day downloading movies and i spend my days shopping on amazon. You're using a lot more bandwidth than I am, why are we not allowing telecoms to ask you to pay for using more bandwidth than me?
April 26, 2006 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOW, Rush is being rewarded (for bending over) with a token version of something which should be our general policy anyway. Nice strategy.
I´ll spew 10% less known-carcinogens into the air if you give me an enormous tax break.
I´ve kidnapped your child and will beat him only once a day if you pay me x million dollars.
I (a Dem) have been watching Rush here in Chicago for years, and I think this is the final straw. Mediocrity, thy name is Rush.
April 26, 2006 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Companies like Amazon and Google are not somehow noble companies, they just don't want to pay more. Understandable, but they shouldn't be treated as saints because of it. In the end however, the net neutrality question does not belong in Congress. They'll just screw it up for all of us. I'd prefer to let the customers solve it by voting with their patronage.
May 4, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing on this issue: net neutrality has not been violated. It just hasn't. And furthermore, I don't see any plans for it to be by any ISP. They wouldn't be dumb enough to block content. It would just be bad business.
May 4, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
pkp646 -- I notice that you have a tendency to comment in the blogosphere in tandem with "oldhats," "paulaner01", "lessgov" and a selection of other people. All of your comments come down on the side of the largest telephone companies and appear in sequence with the above-mentioned people. It seems as though you are all acting in a coordinated fashion. Do you have any relationship with these other individuals? Are you paid directly or indirectly by any telecommunications company -- such as Verizon, AT&T or BellSouth -- to do this work?
Please reply.
May 21, 2006 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink