First of all, Kushnick is not stressing NN. But he has signed on to numerous NN initiatives (including the Dynamic Platform Standards project).
The notion that applies when you relate NN to the regaining of the infrastructure (which is Kushnick's issue, and which includes common carriage) is not about consumer behavior. The relevant notion is that competing ISPs would inherently be NN, because they can't interoperate otherwise. This dynamic is lost when the premise is that there's a couple of huge network providers that essentially cover the path -- at least within the US. That's why we lost NN. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Donovan <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:58:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Kushnick: Competition, Not Neutrality, Is Key > Yes, competition in terribly lacking, but the key assumption is > that > consumers could and would switch to NN-respecting ISPs in a > functioning market. > > I'm not so convinced - for one, NN matters to entrepreneurs as > well as > consumers. If a lot of consumers don't switch to NN ISPs, the > next > YouTube is going to be unable to reach as many viewers. > > And I don't think we should assume that people will flock to NN > ISPs. > For one, people may not realize it importance. The less > paternalistic > reason is that the switching cost is not minimal and there > could be > lock-in (cognizant, financial, technical, or network) that > limit the > ability to switch, regardless of the number of ISPs available. > > On 5/5/10, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > http://www.multichannel.com/article/452161-Competition_Not_Neut > rality_Is_Key.php > > > > > > Competition, Not Neutrality, Is Key > > > > > > By Bruce Kushnick > > > > 5/3/2010 12:01:00 AM > > > > > > A recent court decision ruled (with caveats) that the Federal > > Communications Commission did not have the authority over the > cable > > companies Internet service provisioning, and the > complications known > > as net neutrality (NN), such as blocking or in some way > limiting a > > customers service. Unfortunately, NN is simply a failure of > a market > > without adequate competition. > > > > Our focus has been dragged away from the real issue, the > > infrastructure. There are phone and cable wires in homes and > > businesses, etc. Those wires should allow someone to pick and > choose > > the services over that wire, and if their Internet or > broadband > > provider blocks or degrades their service, the customer can > find > > another provider. Instead, there are only two providers in > most > > markets with the same collusive conditions block all > competition. > > You cant go elsewhere. > > > > Thus, even if the net-neutrality issue was cured by the > FCC, the > > problems are much deeper and they would still continue to > plague > > Americas broadband, Internet and phone customers. > > > > The underlying problem is that the phone and cable companies > have > > taken control of Americas critical infrastructure . And > under their > > control over the last 25 years, theyve failed to adequately > upgrade > > the infrastructure. America is now 15th in the world in > broadband, and > > now every plan is about workarounds of the incumbents or > filling > > deployment holes left from the companies incompetence > or, more > > realistically, greed over public interest. > > > > And it wasnt because AT&T, Verizon Communications, et. al. > didnt > > receive financial incentives. The phone companies made > massive > > commitments to rewire entire states, schools, libraries, > etc., and > > received billions per state to do these upgrades yet, the > work was > > never done. We estimate the companies already received $320 > billion > > and counting, as the companies continue to get phone rate > increases to > > pay for fiber optics and other services. > > > > Not only was the money to be used to upgrade the states > utilities, > > the Public Switched Telephone Networks (PSTN), pocketed by > the > > companies, but just to show you how sleight-of-hand this > broadband > > network discussion goes, AT&T is now claiming that there are > really > > two different networks the old PSTN and the new shiny > broadband > > network. > > > > In fact, AT&T has filed with the FCC to start to close down > the PSTN. > > It claims it is a drain on broadband investment. > > > > Its absurd on its face because there is really only one > phone network > > the PSTN , or state utilities and we at the New Networks > Institute > > believe it has been hijacked illegally. It was the utilities > that were > > supposed to be upgraded to fi ber optics. It was the > utilities that > > were opened to all forms of competition by the Telecom Act > and state > > laws and it is the utilities that are currently funding > Verizon and > > AT&Ts new networks in the form of increasing phone rates. > > > > And yet, over 25 years, theres been a total failure to > properly > > upgrade these utilities. The failure is clear; were 15th in > the world > > in broadband for a reason and after 25 years of AT&T and > Verizons > > rule, we sit here today and are bickering about net > neutrality. > > > > Opening the networks in a traditional way will not solve the > current > > problems. While the break up of AT&T in 1984 was to open the > long > > distance markets, the Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to > open the > > last mile opening up the PSTN to local competition, > Internet > > competition, in fact, even video competition. And while the > Telecom > > Act giveth, under pressure from the phone companies, these > networks > > were closed. But, the era of competition proved that the > phone > > companies would do everything in their power to keep controls > over > > their wires, so simply reopening the networks will not bring > robust > > and sustainable competition. > > > > Maybe its time to give AT&T what it wants AT&T, Verizon, > you keep > > the broadband networks, and well keep and properly finally > upgrade > > the PSTN to what was already paid for fiber optic, very > fast, > > reasonably priced, ubiquitous, open-to-all networks . > > > > Bruce Kushnick is executive director of the New Networks > Institute. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Kevin Donovan > Georgetown '11: SFS > 630.849.8285 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
