This government through the FCC could intervene for public policy
reasons, which are damned obvious, or subscribers could decline to
accept service unless it were fully network neutral. It seems to me this
SBC business is the first shot any of the ISPs has taken at network
neutrality except for the blocking of the occasional port now and again.
Then there's the fact that Google et al enjoy the universal goodwill of
the online public. The ISPs are universally hated, monopolistic
bloodsuckers. The latter goes without saying. As for the so-called
telecoms, if they're rich enough to do large-scale acquisitions, it's
silly to worry that they're not in a position to make decent profits.
Could be argued that they've long since been making excessive profits.
Utilities, because of their declining marginal cost curves, are natural
monopolies. There is EVERY reason to regulate them as there is always
good reason to regulate a natural monpoly (per the standard works in
public policy).
Dustin Goodwin wrote:
As usual Jeff Pulver puts it all down in words. SBC fired the first
shot.But Bell South has basically confirmed it was more then a
misquote. Phone companies think they can control the Internet and
select the content their paying customers get to see.
"his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet
firmso that its service can operate with the same quality as
BellSouth's offering."
These grey haired over-stuffed and over-paid executives that think
they are going to re-invented the Internet from a cell phone on the
18th hole of their country club have another thing coming. This war is
just getting started!
If you have not taken part in the the NYCwireless Network Neutrality
Challenge please get involved NOW.
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge
What is the point of having a FCC if they don't jump in on stuff like
this??????
- Dustin -
---
The Second Glove Is Thrown Down - Let the Communication Wars Begin:
Is BellSouth just sucking up to Ed Whitacre in hopes of acquisition,
or are the Bells really throwing down the gauntlet against the
Internet Application Providers?
As I have said before, the new battlelines are emerging in the
communications war. The battle -- once waged between ILECs and CLECs,
between cable and LEC, between wireline and wireless, between
terrestrial and satellite -- has officially morphed into a battle
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider.
This did not have to be the case; the battle could have persisted
between and among Internet Access Providers, with each trying to gain
the support of the Internet Application Providers to offer their users
more compelling content, services and applications. Instead, it
appears as if the Internet Access Providers are on theverge of opting
for a more "cartel-like" approach, hoping that they can all, in
concert and using their collective control over last-mile and
first-mile access facilities, extract as much additional revenue from
the Internet Application Providers who cannot reach end-users except
through one or the other of their bottleneck facilities.
And, here I was, naively assuming that Ed Whitacre was the outlier,
the only Bell exec publicly threatening to charge Internet
Applications Providers for access to users. Well, it might just be
that Ed Whitacre was simply the pioneer, the public water-tester, the
one foreshadowing the preferred approach of the other LECs and the
other providers of Internet access. Frankly, I am floored by their
premature flagging of this battle, and their desire to serve as the
gatekeeper/toll-collectors to the Web, to IP-based applications, and
to the broader Internet. If I were the spokesperson for an Internet
Access Provider, I think I would not have revealed my hand quite so
early. I think I might have waited a few more months, orat least
until the final and irreversible removal of all vestiges of government
oversight - laws, regulations, and antitrust precedent -- that would
have ensured that users would have a choice of service and application
providers.
I still cannot understand why the Bells don't embrace the virtuous
cycle between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application
Provider? The proliferation of worthwhile Internet applications is
what will drive broadband uptake and increase Internet access revenue
from users, itching to avail themselves of Web 2.0, Voice 2.0,
Internet 2.0? Perhaps they will recognize this synergy if and when a
Google or a Yahoo buys an SBC or a Verizon.
In any event, here is the current state of the battle:
BellSouth's Bill Smith, whom I have always respected as a forthright,
forward-looking technologist with a genuine desire to bring broadband
and new services to consumers, was quoted as saying that "his company
should beallowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that
its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's offering."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html</A>
(As an aside, I cannot think of a VoIP provider with a codec that uses
more than 200 Kbs -- below the FCC's generally-recognized definition
of broadband. Indeed Skype, Vonage, and FWD can operate at or even
below 64 Kbs. So, if the Bells are truly offering broadband -- at
least 200 Kbs, and advertising FIOS and other fiber-based services at
15 Mbs (give or
take) -- why wouldn't their service stand up to their advertised
quality standards, and why would they have to charge more to offer a
service thatmeets their advertised bandwidth standards?)
In any case, we had anticipated this battle, but not quite so soon.
Apparently, net neutrality means different things to different people,
depending on whether you control the network and user access or not.
To the Bells, net neutrality and nondiscrimination means that the
Internet Access Provider may not block or discriminate against Web
content or services by degrading their performance, but the Internet
Access Provider may charge for superior access, above and beyond a
baseline service level that all content providers would enjoy.
I guess "nondiscrimination" means different things to different
people, depending on where you stand in the Internet food chain.
And the second glove is pulled off in what might now become a
bare-fistedfight between the Internet Application Providers and
Internet Access Providers. The first glove was removed when Ed
Whitacre used the "F"
word, calling the VoIP providers "free-riders", using HIS network to
reach HIS customers.
Actually, there was a less-public third indication of the coming war
backin the Summer of 2004. I recall Larry Babio, Verizon Vice Chair,
sayingat the Progress and Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit that the
unaffiliated VoIP providers were free-riders. I do not understand; or
is it they who do not understand that unaffiliated VoIP providers DO
pay for access to "their" network, just like any other large volume
user or
enterprise? The problem emerges because the Internet Access providers
think they have the right to discriminate between the user who uses
the network to sell pizza and the user who uses the network to provide
voice communications. Perhaps if the Bells were to expand their
operations to provide pizza as well, the pizza lobby would see the
problem too. The truth is that the ability to discriminate against
unaffiliated IP-based application providers does interfere with the
ability of ALL end-users to maximize their communications and Internet
experience, by the creation of Internet Access Provider-controlled
walled gardens.
Hearing this from BellSouth's most honorable CTO the other day just
verifies that we are not being paranoid. The Bells seem collectively
committed to renege on the promise and the vision of Arpanet, and to
supplant theopen, public Internet with their own walled gardens.
Perhaps the baseline principle might have to be that providers of
Internet access cannot discriminate against end-users in terms of
price and bandwidth capability. Now that Moore's Law has allowed the
service or application to be disintermediated from the access
provider, an application or service provider can simply be an end-user
purchasing connectivity from an Internet access provider. Is it fair
for the Internet access provider to charge one rate for the enterprise
that delivers pizza and a premium to the enterprise that delivers
Internet applications? This is the principle that seems absent from
the debate, from proposed statutory reform, from proposed regulatory
reform.
I fear that one day soon, the Internet Access Providers' true goal
will be revealed - to create walled gardens, in which it would be, at
best, a Hobson's Choice for a user to pick any service or application
other than that which is spoon-fed to the end-user by the Internet
Access Provider.
I look forward to the day in which the Internet Application Providers
become as adept at lobbying and working the legislative and policy
arena as the Internet Access Providers. Admittedly, it is a steep
learning curve and the Internet Access Providers have a few decades
head-start.
<http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003386.html>
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
